UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-7909



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MARION PROMISE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:98-cr-00007-2; 3:05-cv-00278-1)


Submitted:   June 8, 2007                  Decided:   June 19, 2007


Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marion Promise, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Marion Promise seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).                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 Promise 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 -