                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7365



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MOHAMMED AMIN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Rebecca Beach Smith,
District Judge. (CR-02-13; CA-03-137-4)


Submitted:   December 9, 2004          Decided:     December 16, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mohammed Amin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Brandenham, II,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Mohammed Amin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000),

and denying reconsideration.         An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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

his constitutional claims are debatable 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 Amin 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 -
