                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-7026



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ARTHUR F. JONES,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-99-362)


Submitted:   August 25, 2006             Decided:   November 22, 2006


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arthur F. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Arthur F. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as successive his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of 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   Jones   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 -
