                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6129



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ARTHUR LEE HAIRSTON, SR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00024-WCB; 3:06-cv-123)


Submitted: May 10, 2007                         Decided:   May 14, 2007


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas
Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order   accepting   the    report    and    recommendation    of   a

magistrate judge and 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 Hairston 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 -
