                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7963



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ELAN CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier
Harris,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-94; CA-5-766-3)


Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 30, 2006


Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Maguire,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Elan Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order construing his application for a

writ of audita querela as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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    both    that   the   district    court’s     assessment     of   his

constitutional      claims     is    debatable     or     wrong    and    that   any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Lewis 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 -
