                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6845



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


NELSON EDDY WALKER,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-97-91, CA-03-63)


Submitted:   August 14, 2003                 Decided:   August 22, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nelson Eddy Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Nelson Eddy Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge to construe his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it.       The order is appealable only

if    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 his constitutional claims are 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,

     , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).       We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Walker 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
