UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7239



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RANDOLPH CROCKER, JR., a/k/a Tiny,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-95-52)


Submitted:   November 6, 2003          Decided:     November 20, 2003


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Randolph Crocker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

      Randolph Crocker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his pleading as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), and denying the motion as successive.        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).       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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

,             ,

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crocker has not

made the requisite showing.*     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal.    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and




      *
      To the extent Crocker’s notice of appeal and appellate brief
could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United
States v. Winestock, 

, 208 (4th Cir.), petition for
cert. filed,     U.S.L.W.    (U.S. Sept. 22, 2003) (No. 03-6548).


                                     2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                        DISMISSED




                                3