                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7254



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-H-5; 4:07-cv-00020-H)


Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 26, 2007


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Nigel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his second motion to reconsider the court’s prior order

dismissing as untimely 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 Clarke has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,    we    deny   Clarke’s   motions   for   a    certificate    of

appealability and to remand the case, 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 -
