UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-6026



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRIAN THORNEL ELZEY,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:03-cr-00159-WDQ; 1:06-cv-01951-WDQ)


Submitted:   April 18, 2007                 Decided:   May 10, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian Thornel Elzey, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Brian Thornel Elzey seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

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, 

, 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   Elzey   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 -