UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-6329



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREGORY ALLEN MILTON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.    Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:00-cv-00031-SGW-GC; 5:95-cr-70074-SGW-1)


Submitted: May 16, 2006                          Decided: May 24, 2006


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Allen Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his subsequent Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e) motion.     The orders are 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 Milton 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 -