                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6778



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg.  Joseph R. Goodwin,
Chief District Judge. (6:00-cr-00262)


Submitted:   October 24, 2007          Decided:     November 14, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Francisco    Alberto   Lozano-Torres      seeks   to   appeal    the

district    court’s     order   accepting    the    recommendation      of   the

magistrate judge and 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). 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 Lozano-Torres

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 -
