UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7883



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


PAMELA DAWN BEAUCHAMP,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (6:94-cr-00286-WLO; 1:05-cv-01053-WLO)


Submitted:   March 29, 2007                 Decided:   April 5, 2007


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Pamela Dawn Beauchamp, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Pamela    Dawn   Beauchamp       seeks    to    appeal    the    district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing as untimely her 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 Beauchamp has

not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny Beauchamp’s

motion   for     appointment       of   counsel,     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 -