                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-6757



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


HILTON THOMAS,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:97-cr-00355-WMN; 1:06-cv-02537-WMN)


Submitted:   March 14, 2008                 Decided:   April 24, 2008


Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Hilton Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie M. Bennett, Robert Reeves
Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Hilton Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for reconsideration of

the district court’s previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion.     The orders are 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 F.3d 363, 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,

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 Thomas 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 -
