                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7460



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:05-00006-HCM; 4:07-cv-00010-HCM)


Submitted:   January 30, 2008             Decided:   August 21, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Eugene Brooks, Appellant Pro Se.    Scott Walker Putney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Anthony   Eugene   Brooks   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 Brooks has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brooks’

motion to amend or correct his informal brief, we deny his motion

to transfer, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.   We deny as moot Brooks’ motion for release on bond pending

review. 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 -
