                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-6199


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FREDDY RAMIREZ,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.    Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:00-cr-00330-HMH-2; 6:10-cv-70139-HMH)


Submitted:   March 30, 2010                 Decided:   April 6, 2010


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Freddy Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se.     Elizabeth Jean Howard,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Freddy Ramirez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order    dismissing      as     successive        his    28    U.S.C.A.     § 2255        (West

Supp.    2009)    motion.        The     order      is    not    appealable        unless    a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                    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)         (2006).        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 Ramirez 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
