UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6209



MICHAEL TALIEFERRO,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:05-cv-00533-WMN)


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


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Talieferro, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Michael Talieferro appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motions to vacate and set aside judgment or, in the

alternative, motion for leave to amend the court’s denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                The orders are 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 Talieferro has not made the requisite

showing.*       Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.




      *
      To the extent Talieferro seeks to appeal the district court’s
original denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, his appeal is
untimely.

                                       - 2 -
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




                                  - 3 -