UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-6997



JAIME HUGH AGUIRRE-ESPINOZA,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:03-cr-00078-BO; 5:05-cv-00748-BO)


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


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jaime Hugh Aguirre-Espinoza, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Jaime Hugo Aguirre-Espinoza seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of its 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,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have

independently    reviewed   the   record   and   conclude    that    Aguirre-

Espinoza 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 -