UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7226



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOSE FERREIRA,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:90-cr-00432-AVB; 97-cv-637)


Submitted: August 24, 2006                 Decided: September 1, 2006


Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jose Ferreira, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jose Ferreira seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion that sought to vacate the

district court’s denial of 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 Ferreira 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 -