                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7965



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DAVID JONES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (CR-98-10)


Submitted: February 16, 2006              Decided: February 23, 2006


Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           David Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his motion to modify an illegal sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582 (2000) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing

it as successive.    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 both

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings

by the district court are also debatable or wrong.     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 Jones

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 -
