                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 06-6657



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DARRELL W. SAMUEL,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:94-cr-00773-JFA)


Submitted:   August 16, 2006                 Decided:   August 24, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se.      Christopher Todd Hagins,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Darrell W. Samuel seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing for lack

of jurisdiction.    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 Samuel 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 -
