UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6144



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GARY HALL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:02-
cr-00252-JFM; 1:05-cv-0175-JFM)


Submitted: July 20, 2006                        Decided: July 24, 2006


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gary Hall, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Gary Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion to amend his previously dismissed 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).         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   Hall    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 -