                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6137



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RALPH SULLIVAN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:97-cr-00765-HMH; 6:05-cv-03279-HMH)


Submitted: May 18, 2006                          Decided: May 31, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ralph Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Ralph Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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).          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 Sullivan 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 -
