UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-7667



RAYMOND BILLY SIMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDWARD R. MURRAY,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-94-393-1-AVB)


Submitted: April 27, 2006                        Decided: May 3, 2006


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Billy Sims, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Raymond Billy Sims seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order denying his supplemental motion to amend his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 

,

370 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying the certificate of appealability

requirement to appellate review of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion).    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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sims

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 -