UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6630



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LANCE L. BROWN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00153-HEH; 3:05-cv-00833-HEH)


Submitted:   September 19, 2007        Decided:     December 21, 2007


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lance L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg,   United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Rina C. Tucker,        UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Stephen        Wiley
Miller, Charles Everett James, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED      STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lance L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting limited relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

dismissing    the   motion    without   prejudice.      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 Brown 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 -