UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-6766



ROBERT E. BUTLER,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


TRACY S. RAY, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00077-JRS)


Submitted:   August 7, 2006             Decided:     September 1, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert E. Butler, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert Edward Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s

order   dismissing     as   successive     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). 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 Butler 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 -