UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6237



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL ANTHONY BELL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(1:91-cr-00189-CMC-2; 1:05-cv-03383-CMC)


Submitted: May 16, 2006                          Decided: May 23, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael A. Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion to dismiss the indictment, which the

district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and

granting    in   part   and   denying   in    part   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 Bell 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 -