                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6598



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


KENNETH AVERY WATSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-98-66, CA-00-184-5-1-V)


Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 20, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Avery Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Kenneth Avery Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). 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, 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Watson 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
