                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 06-6512



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


KEITH A. ELSESSER,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior
District Judge, sitting by designation. (3:01-cr-00079-3; 3:05-cv-
00400)


Submitted:   October 4, 2006                 Decided:   October 18, 2006


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory J. Rufo, THE RUFO LAW FIRM, Canton, Ohio, for Appellant.
Kenneth M. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Keith A. Elsesser 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 Elsesser 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
