                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7922



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ROBERT LEE WALSH,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00752-PMD; 2:06-cv-01576-PMD)


Submitted:   June 4, 2007                   Decided:   June 19, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert Lee Walsh, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Robert Lee Walsh seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying the motion.    The order

denying Walsh’s § 2255 motion 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 Walsh 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 -
