                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 08-6044



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:07-cv-70092-HMH)


Submitted:   May 22, 2008                  Decided:   May 29, 2008


Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion* for reconsideration

of 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004).   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 Cline has not

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




     *
      Cline originally filed his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). Because the motion was untimely as a Rule 59 motion, the
district court construed the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

                                - 2 -
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




                              - 3 -
