                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 07-6539



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMES READ DAVIS,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (6:03-cr-30073-sgw; 7:07-cv-00077-sgw)


Submitted:   August 23, 2007                 Decided:   August 29, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Read Davis, Appellant Pro Se.    William Frederick Gould,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              James Read 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, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -
