UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                 No. 08-7050



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


WILLIAM FRANKLIN SEHEN,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-70128-nkm-mfu-1; 4:08-cv-80043-nkm-mfu)


Submitted:     August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 22, 2008


Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Franklin Sehen, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          William Franklin Sehen seeks to appeal 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).   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 Sehen 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