                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6979



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LAWRENCE WILLIAM BYRD, a/k/a Sun,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CR-00-154; CA-03-183-3)


Submitted:   December 18, 2003            Decided:   January 15, 2004


Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lawrence William Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.       Brian Ronald Hood,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Lawrence    William   Byrd   seeks    to    appeal   the   district

court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration.                    An

appeal may not be taken from a 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 Byrd 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
