                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6068



SAMUEL LEWIS BAKER, JR.,

                                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:04-cr-30073-SGW; 7:06-cv-00129-SGW)


Submitted:   June 11, 2007                 Decided:   April 28, 2008


Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Lewis Baker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge
Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Samuel Lewis Baker, Jr., seeks to appeal 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).   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 Baker 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 -
