                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6300



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


ERIC LAMONT WHITENER,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:90-cr-00085-FDW-3; 3:97-cv-00262-FDW)


Submitted:     June 26, 2008                 Decided:   July 2, 2008


Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Lamont Whitener, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Eric Lamont Whitener seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a

prior order of the court dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion, and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend

judgment.      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 Whitener 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 -
