`                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6879



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOHN LEE BOYD, JR.,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:93-cr-123-1-F; 97-cv-181-F)


Submitted: October 31, 2006                 Decided:   November 6, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Lee Boyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.     Frank DeArmon Whitney,
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          John Lee Boyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on 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); 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 Boyd 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 -
