UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6039



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CARLOS ALBERTO PEREZ-FULGENCIO,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-SGW-1; 7:05-cv-00235-SGW)


Submitted:   June 29, 2007                 Decided:   July 13, 2007


Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carlos Alberto Perez-Fulgencio, Appellant Pro Se.    Ray Burton
Fitzgerald,   Jr.,  OFFICE   OF  THE   UNITED STATES  ATTORNEY,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Carlos   Alberto   Perez-Fulgencio   seeks   to   appeal   the

district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 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); Reid v. Angelone, 

, 369

(4th Cir. 2004).    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 Perez-Fulgencio

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 -