UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-7212



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


JAYNO HOWIE,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00192-JAB; 1:07-cv-00460-JAB)


Submitted:   July 22, 2008                 Decided:   July 24, 2008


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jayno Howie, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Jayno Howie seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his

motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.                 The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.           See 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.      See   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

Howie has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.




                                       - 2 -
          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




                              - 3 -