UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7761



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TROY J. GREEN,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00026-WCB; 3:03-cv-00073-WCB)


Submitted:   March 22, 2007                 Decided:   March 28, 2007


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Troy J. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Troy J. Green 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 Green has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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 -