                  Rehearing granted, August 21, 2006

                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6602



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOHN CAVANAUGH,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00123-RBS; 2:06-cv-20)


Submitted: July 25, 2006                     Decided: August 3, 2006



Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Cavanaugh, Appellant Pro Se.     Laura P. Tayman, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           John Cavanaugh seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                 The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).          A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                 28 U.S.C.

§   2253(c)(2)   (2000).   A   prisoner   satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that   reasonable     jurists   would     find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cavanaugh has

not made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny his motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                  We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -
