UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-7986



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


VANCE EDWARD INGRAM, III,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
District Judge. (CR-01-207; CA-05-393-1)


Submitted:   August 16, 2006             Decided:   September 8, 2006


Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vance Edward Ingram, III, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Vance Edward Ingram, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                    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 Ingram has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we

deny Ingram’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.      We also deny his motion to authorize a transcript at

government expense.         Finally, 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 -