                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6378



IVAN R. CAMERON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


KATHLEEN J. BASSETT,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-288)


Submitted:   May 13, 2005                  Decided:    June 10, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ivan R. Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Ivan R. Cameron, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion 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

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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the

record    and    conclude      that   Cameron   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 -
