                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6946



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DAVID ELIJAH SMITH, a/k/a David Jones, a/k/a
Miami Dave, a/k/a Jerry Lee Brown, a/k/a
Michael Knight,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:93-cr-00016-F-1; 7:98-cv-00157-BO)


Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 8, 2006


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Elijah Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             David Elijah Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and his motion

for reconsideration of that denial filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255

proceeding 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 Smith 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 -
