                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 07-6377



JOSE MANUEL ZALDIVAR-FUENTES,

                                              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. (5:05-cr-00007-sgw; 7:06-cv-00465-sgw)


Submitted:   August 31, 2007            Decided:   September 26, 2007


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jose Manuel Zaldivar-Fuentes, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton
Fitzgerald,   Jr.,  OFFICE   OF  THE   UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jose Manuel Zaldivar-Fuentes 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    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   Zaldivar-Fuentes      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 -
