                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6110



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


RACHEL REED,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:05-cr-00079-SGW-1; 7:07-cv-00284-SGW-MFU)


Submitted:   April 17, 2008                 Decided: April 23, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rachel Reed, Appellant Pro Se. C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Rachel Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her 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 Reed 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




      *
      Reed’s notice of appeal      also refers to the district court’s
order denying her motion to        reduce her sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000).        Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(d), a
copy of the notice of appeal       has been sent to the district court
clerk’s office for filing.

                                   - 2 -
