                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-7588



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


ANTONIO DAVIS,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (4:04-cr-00039-H; 4:07-cv-00086-H)


Submitted:   February 28, 2008             Decided:   March 7, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Davis, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Antonio Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion

for reconsideration.          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, 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   Davis   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 -
