                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7441



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


KHOI D. NGUYEN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CR-02-283; CA-05-244)


Submitted: December 15, 2005              Decided:   December 21, 2005



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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Khoi D. Nguyen, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis V. Gomez, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Khoi D. Nguyen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), as untimely filed.            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 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,

336-38 (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 Nguyen 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 -
