                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6420



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TRACY DEMONT HUMPHRIES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.     James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (2:91-cr-00153-UA-2; 1:05-cv-00359-JAB)


Submitted: July 25, 2006                    Decided: August 1, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tracy Demont Humphries, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Tracy Demont Humphries seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his motion for modification of sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), which the district court

construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                  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 Humphries has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal.     We dispense with oral argument          because    the




                                 - 2 -
facts   and   legal    contentions   are     adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                      DISMISSED




                                     - 3 -
