                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6401



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ROBBY TRUMAN SHERRILL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (5:01-cr-00004; 5:06-cv-00029)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robby Truman Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se.    Keith Michael Cave,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Robby   Truman   Sherrill   seeks   to   appeal     the   district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

as time-barred.        This 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 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 (4th Cir. 2001).

We    have   independently     reviewed   the   record    and    conclude   that

Sherrill 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 -
