                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6752



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ROBERT ALLEN TAYLOR,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-99-567; CA-06-996-WDQ-1)


Submitted:   August 25, 2005              Decided:   September 2, 2005


Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Allen Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Robert Allen Taylor, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order construing his motion to modify the term

of his imprisonment as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), 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 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, 336-38 (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 Taylor 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
