UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-6013



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RANDOLPH DENNIS HUTCHENS, II,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:00-cr-00029-WCB; 3:05-cv-00113-WCB)


Submitted:   March 29, 2007                 Decided:   April 6, 2007


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kevin David Mills, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Randolph    Dennis    Hutchens,    II,     seeks   to   appeal   the

district    court’s    order     accepting    the    recommendation    of    the

magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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). 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 Hutchens 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 -