                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7009



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHRISTOPHER ANDARYL WILLS,       a/k/a   Michael
Wills, a/k/a Ed Short,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:99-cr-00396-LMB; 1:05-cv-00775-LMB)


Submitted:   March 28, 2007                 Decided:   April 20, 2007


Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Andaryl Wills, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Kevin Victor DiGregory, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Christopher Andaryl Wills seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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   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 Wills has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Wills’ motions for appointment of counsel,

deny his motion for 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 -
