UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-8083



DONALD LEE WILLIAMS, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


R. H. POWELL, Warden, Brunswick Correctional
Center,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00127-JCC)


Submitted:   July 13, 2007                 Decided:   July 27, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Lee Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.   Thomas Drummond
Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Donald Lee Williams, Jr., 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. § 2254 (2000) petition.                  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   Williams    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 -