                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6386




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN J. LAMANNA,
Warden at Federal Correctional Institution at
Edgefield,

                                          Respondents - Appellees,


          versus


ANDREW FLETCHER, a/k/a Boonie Fletcher,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,




Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (0:05-cv-02453-CMC)


Submitted: May 18, 2006                         Decided: June 1, 2006


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew Fletcher, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Andrew Fletcher seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),

as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it

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    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. 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 Fletcher 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 -
