                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7886



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


FELIX ORIAKHI,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (1:90-
cr-00072-PJM; 1:05-cv-3389-PJM)


Submitted: January 25, 2007                 Decided:   February 1, 2007


Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Felix Oriakhi, a federal prisoner, seeks a certificate of

appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the district court correctly construed

as a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

likewise 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 Oriakhi 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 -
