UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-7279



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


BILLY RAY FAIRLEY, SR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.     James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00229-JAB; 1:07-cv-00475-JAB)


Submitted:   March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 1, 2008


Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon,
Assistant United States Attorney; Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Billy Ray Fairley, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge,

treating his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.

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 Fairley has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny Fairley’s motion

for 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 -