UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6132



JAMES EDWARD THOMAS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00720-FL)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                       Decided: June 29, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           James Edward Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion as a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion, denying it, and denying his motion for

reconsideration.   The orders are 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 Thomas 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 -