                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7395



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHRISTOPHER J. GIBSON,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:04-cr-00053-sgw; 7:05-cv-00743-sgw)


Submitted: January 18, 2007                 Decided:   January 22, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher J. Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Christopher    J.   Gibson   seeks     to    appeal    the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 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 Gibson has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability,   deny   Gibson’s    motion   for      copies    at    government

expense, 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 -
