                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6050



JAMES LEE HARRIS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


K. J. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain
Correctional Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-5)


Submitted:   June 23, 2005                  Decided:   June 29, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            James Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                       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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are also debatable or wrong.                 See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose   v.   Lee,   252   F.3d       676,    683    (4th   Cir.   2001).    We   have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris 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 -
