                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6788



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LORENZO ADDERLY,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:95-cr-00074-RLW; 3:07-cv-00194-RLW)


Submitted:   September 13, 2007           Decided:   September 19, 2007


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Lorenzo Adderly seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders   denying:    (1)   his   Fed.      R.   Civ.   P.    60(b)   motion   for

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

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and (2) his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion for reconsideration of that order.                   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     Adderly    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




                                     - 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                              - 3 -
