                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7828



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BARRETT LEE CLARK,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-02-57; CA-05-224-2)


Submitted: April 27, 2006                        Decided: May 4, 2006


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Barrett Lee Clark, Appellant Pro Se.    Jill Westmoreland Rose,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Barrett Lee Clark, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed.            An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding 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    the     district      court’s     assessment       of     his

constitutional      claims      is   debatable     or     wrong    and     that    any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Clark 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 -
