                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7375



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRUNO SAUCEDO-OLVERA,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.    Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:03-cr-00097-2; 1:06-cv-00219)


Submitted:   October 23, 2006          Decided:     November 14, 2006


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bruno Saucedo-Olvera, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Bruno Saucedo-Olvera 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 Saucedo-Olvera

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 -
