                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6363



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LEONARD SHELTON MCCULLOUGH, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:96-cr-00195-FWB; 1:05-cv-00785-FWB)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                         Decided: July 3, 2006



Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Leonard Shelton McCullough, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.    The orders are 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 McCullough 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 -
