                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7164



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BERNARD LEE DODSON, SR.,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00257-JRS; 3:05-cv-00263-JRS)


Submitted:   November 15, 2006            Decided:   November 21, 2006


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bernard Lee Dodson, Sr., 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Dodson 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 -
