                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-6865



PATRICK PERCY JOHNSON, JR.,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05-
cv-03395-JFM)


Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 3, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Patrick Percy Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Patrick Percy Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on 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 Johnson has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.    Because the district court

has denied Johnson’s motion for reconsideration, we deny as moot

Johnson’s motion for stay and remand.         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 -
