                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7862



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-98-358-A; CA-03-670-A)


Submitted:   June 9, 2004                  Decided:   July 16, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motions

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).               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    his

constitutional    claims   are   debatable   and   that     any     dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny certificates 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 -
