                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-7511



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


LUIS PEREZ, a/k/a Luis Quilson,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00057-WCB; 3:06-cv-00088)


Submitted:   April 2, 2008                 Decided:   April 21, 2008


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luis Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Luis Perez 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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Perez 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 -
