                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7921



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRIAN KEITH LATTIMORE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-157; CA-04-485-3-1-MU)


Submitted:   June 17, 2005                 Decided:   July 28, 2005


Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian Keith Lattimore, Appellant Pro Se.    Robert John Gleason,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Brian    Keith   Lattimore      seeks    to     appeal   the   district

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

§ 2255 (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

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     Lattimore   has   not     made    the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny Lattimore’s motion for 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 -
