                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7682



PHILIP MARTIN COOPER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-165)


Submitted:   February 16, 2005             Decided:   March 3, 2005


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Philip Martin Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Philip Martin Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider.   An appeal may not

be taken from either order unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 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 his constitutional claims are

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.       See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper

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 -
