                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7675



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL ANTHONY CARTER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-00-64; CA-04-1018-1)


Submitted: February 23, 2006                   Decided: March 6, 2006


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael Anthony Carter seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).*    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 both

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

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 Carter 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




     *
      Carter’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion was dismissed without
prejudice in August 2004, and he did not appeal. He subsequently
filed a § 2255 motion, and the dismissal of this motion is the
subject of the present appeal.

                                     - 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.



                                                        DISMISSED




                              - 3 -
