UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7672



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILLIAM EDWARD HINES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-52; CA-04-636)


Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 22, 2005


Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Edward Hines, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          William Edward Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider its

denial of Hines’ 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Reid v.

Angelone, 

, 371 (4th Cir. 2004); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hines 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