UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7201



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHRISTOPHER WAYNE BOWMAN,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-00033-2; 5:06-cv-00067)


Submitted: January 18, 2006                 Decided:   January 22, 2007


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Wayne Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Christopher Wayne Bowman 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. 60(b) 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   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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 

, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Bowman 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 -