                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6870



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ANTWOYNE L. WYATT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00173-HEH; 3:07-cv-327)


Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 25, 2007


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antwoyne L. Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se.  Roderick Charles Young,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Antwoyne L. Wyatt seeks to appeal the district court’s

order      treating    his   motion   challenging       the   district    court’s

jurisdiction over his criminal case as a successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.                 The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.          28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid

v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).               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 Wyatt 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 -
