UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-7584



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


DEWAYNE ANTHONY SHIFFLETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-sgw; 7:06-cv-00497-sgw)


Submitted:   March 18, 2008                 Decided:   April 8, 2008


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


DeWayne Anthony Shifflett, Appellant Pro        Se.     Ray Burton
Fitzgerald,   Jr.,  OFFICE   OF  THE   UNITED    STATES   ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           DeWayne Anthony Shifflett 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 Shifflett has

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

motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his pro se motion

for “Permission to file a writ of habeas corpus in the district

court and consolidate briefs upon completion,” 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 -