                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7268



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TERRY KERMIT JOHNSON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00289-RLV; 5:03-cv-00049-RLV)


Submitted:   January 17, 2008             Decided:   January 24, 2008


Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terry Kermit Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Terry Kermit Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders   denying       his   Fed.    R.    Civ.    P.   60(b)    motions     for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.             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 Johnson 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 -
