                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6985



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILLIAM MARCEL BOYCE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.   Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:91-cr-00114-03; 3:05-cv-00070)


Submitted: September 26, 2006              Decided: October 2, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Marcel Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            William Marcel Boyce seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion with

prejudice. 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 Boyce has not

made the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Boyce’s motion

for 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 -
