UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6891



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DAVID PEREZ-GARCIA,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036; 3:04-cv-00429)


Submitted:   September 13, 2007       Decided:   September 19, 2007


Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Perez-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer Marie Hoefling,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           David Perez-Garcia 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 Perez-Garcia

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 -