                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6940



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


QUINTIN O’DELL MCMILLAN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-04-150; CA-05-141)


Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 5, 2005


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quinton O’Dell McMillan, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Quintin O’Dell McMillan seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.            The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.     See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).         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

McMillan 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 -
