                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7210



WILLIAM H. GLAZEBROOK,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ED WRIGHT, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-402-1-JCC)


Submitted: January 26, 2006                 Decided:   February 1, 2006


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William H. Glazebrook, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             William   H.    Glazebrook     seeks    to    appeal    the    district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).         The order is not appealable 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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

Glazebrook has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we

deny   a    certificate     of   appealability      and    dismiss    the    appeal.

Glazebrook’s pending motions are denied.                  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 -
