UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6002



ANTHONY D. WILLIAMSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-97-405-R)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                       Decided: June 28, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony D. Williamson, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Anthony     D.   Williamson    seeks    to    appeal   the   district

court’s order denying his motion seeking reconsideration of the

district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order 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); Reid v. Angelone, 

, 369

(4th Cir. 2004).       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 Williamson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to

proceed   in   forma   pauperis   on     appeal,    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 -