UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6122


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

DANIEL KELLY, a/k/a Danial Edward Kelly,

                  Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.        Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:96-cr-00033-RLV-1; 5:04-cv-00053-
RLV)


Submitted:    November 13, 2008            Decided:   November 19, 2008


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Daniel       Kelly    seeks      to    appeal      the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008)

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 Kelly 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