UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6210



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


PATRICK DEVONE WALKER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
Chief District Judge. (3:95-cr-00005-10; 3:98-cv-00140)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                        Decided: June 29, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Patrick Devone Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Patrick   Devone   Walker   seeks    to   appeal    the   district

court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying it as a successive motion

for which authorization had not been granted.             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, 

, 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -