                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7306



RICHARD DAVID DEGOUT,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:07-cv-00374-jct)


Submitted:   December 13, 2007         Decided:     December 20, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard David Degout, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Richard David Degout seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), 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 Degout 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 facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                 DISMISSED


                                  - 2 -
