                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-6062



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MANUEL POPOCA ANSELMO,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:03-cr-00037; 7:05-cv-00067-F)


Submitted:   March 22, 2007                 Decided:   March 30, 2007


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Manuel Popoca Anselmo, Appellant Pro Se.   John Samuel Bowler,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Manuel    Popoca   Anselmo     seeks    to    appeal     the   district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying reconsideration.           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    Anselmo    has   not   made     the    requisite       showing.

Accordingly,     we     deny    Anselmo’s    motion    for       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 -
