                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7556



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:91-cr-00070; 2:97-cv-00524-RAJ)


Submitted: November 21, 2006              Decided:   December 4, 2006


Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se.      Laura Marie Everhart,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Douglas Alan Jarvis 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, and a subsequent margin order denying his

motion for 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); 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 Jarvis has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Jarvis’ motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.   We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in




                               - 2 -
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                    DISMISSED




                            - 3 -
