                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6189



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ELEAZAR TEODORO-BASILIO,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00094-1; 3:04-cv-00609)


Submitted: June 21, 2007                     Decided:   June 28, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Eleazar Teodoro-Basilio 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 Teodoro-Basilio

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 -
