                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7494



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMIE WILLIAM SITES,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00009; 2:04-cv-00046)


Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 8, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamie William Sites, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Jamie   William   Sites,   a   federal   prisoner,   seeks    a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s denial

of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court

construed as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

likewise debatable or wrong.    See 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 Sites has not

made the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny 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 -
