                                UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 07-7485



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


NOE DAVID RAMIREZ-GUARDADO, a/k/a Tricky,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00376-TSE; 1:06-cv-01321-TSE)


Submitted:     March 25, 2008                 Decided:   March 27, 2008


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Noe David Ramirez-Guardado, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Noe David Ramirez-Guardado seeks to appeal the district

court’s order 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    Ramirez-

Guardado 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 -
