Certiorari dismissed, November 3, 2008



                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-6035



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


BERNARD GIBSON, SR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:94-
cr-00454-PJM-2; 8:05-cv-01437-PJM)


Submitted:   February 28, 2008             Decided: March 10, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Gibson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Bernard Gibson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion to amend his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and the court’s order denying his motion

to reconsider.      The district court found that there was no pending

§ 2255 motion to amend and that, in any event, Gibson’s motions

were tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Gibson had

not obtained authorization to file.             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 Gibson 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




                                       - 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                              - 3 -