                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 07-6868



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


NIGEL CLARKE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-5-H; 4:07-cv-00020-H)


Submitted:   August 30, 2007             Decided:   September 10, 2007


Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Nigel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).             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 Clarke has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.       We deny Clarke’s motion to

return the case to district court and 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 -
