UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7538



MAURICE DONIKIN-EL, a/k/a Maurice Donikin,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-05-493-RBS)


Submitted: February 16, 2006              Decided: February 22, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurice Donikin-El, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Maurice Donikin-El, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as an unauthorized second or

successive petition.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.      28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 

 (4th Cir.

2004).     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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Donikin-El has not made the requisite

showing.      Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of

counsel, 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 -