have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pavlock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pavlock’s application to proceed in formal pauperis, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Pavlock’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28 days after the district court entered its dismissal order and, thus, the mo-lion did not toll Pavlock’s time to appeal the district court’s dismissal order. See Fed. R. App, P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi); Fed. R, Civ, P. 59(e); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988)
holding that prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court holding that prisoners notice of appeal deemed filed on date he delivered it to prison officials for mailing to court holding that pro se prisoners 28 usc  2254 application deemed filed for limitation purposes when deposited with prison officials for mailing holding that a pro se prisoners notice of appeal is considered filed upon delivery to prison authorities for mailing to the court holding that an noa filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner delivers it to prison authorities for mailing