                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7294



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EVERETT HAGER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.  Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (CR-00-6; CA-02-1353-2)


Submitted: January 26, 2006                 Decided:   February 1, 2006


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Everett Hager, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Ian Loew, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Everett Hager seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and

denying relief on Hager’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                  An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding

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    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 (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 Hager 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 -
