                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7112



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JERMAINE DONNELL KORNEGAY,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:04-cr-32-1-F; 7:05-cv-203-F)


Submitted:   October 23, 2006              Decided:   November 3, 2006


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jermaine Donnell Kornegay, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan Ainsworth
Ontjes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Jermaine Donnell Kornegay seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion for

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.                 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 Kornegay 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 -
