UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7611



AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:91-cr-00250-WMN; 1:06-cv-02239-WMN)


Submitted:   December 21, 2006            Decided:   January 4, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing Abdel-Aziz’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

as a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and then

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.              An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                  28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000).         When, as here, a district court dismisses a

§ 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate

both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether

the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”

Rose v. Lee, 

, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel,      

,   484    (2000)).     We     have   independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Abdel-Aziz has not made the

requisite showing.          See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336

(2003).

               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


     *
      To the extent Abdel-Aziz seeks to raise claims for the first
time on appeal, we decline to consider such claims. See Muth v.
United States, 

, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).

                                         - 2 -
materials   before   the   court   and     argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                   - 3 -