UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7981



BILL DEAN BYRD,

                                            Defendant - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CR-99-013; CA-05-729)


Submitted: February 23, 2006                    Decided: March 6, 2006


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bill Dean Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Bill Dean Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               This

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 his constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.           See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd

has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we 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 -