                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-6070



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


SAMUEL PETE TANNER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-62; CA-01-553-5-BO)


Submitted:   May 14, 2004                   Decided:   June 9, 2004


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Pete Tanner, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Samuel Pete Tanner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               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,

336-38 (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 Tanner 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 -
