                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-6708



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WESLEY HODGE,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:96-cr-00054-BO-2)


Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 3, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wesley Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Wesley Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his motion for modification of sentence as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

motion challenging the denial of his first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).               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 Hodge 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 -
