UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 06-7566



TRAVIS BERNARD FRALEY,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:97-cr-00043-1; 5:97-cr-00348; 5:04-cv-00015)


Submitted:   January 8, 2007                 Decided:   February 7, 2007


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Travis Bernard Fraley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Travis   Bernard   Fraley   seeks     to    appeal   the    district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

The orders are 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 Fraley 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 -