                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6473



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LANCE BISHOP STEGLICH,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (3:00-cr-00063-jhm; 7:07-cv-00029-jpj)


Submitted: July 19, 2007                    Decided:   July 25, 2007


Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lance Bishop Steglich, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lance       Bishop   Steglich     seeks   to    appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Steglich 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 -
