                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6853


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

TERRENCE DANIELS, a/k/a Terrance Daniels,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-1; 3:07-cv-70119-CMC)


Submitted:    December 10, 2008            Decided:   December 23, 2008


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrence Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.     Deborah Brereton Barbier,
William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Terrence Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

The orders are 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    Daniels     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
