                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-6307



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JERRY INDUSTRIOUS,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (CR-00-20; CA-02-679)


Submitted:   August 26, 2004              Decided:   September 1, 2004


Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerry Industrious, Appellant Pro Se.       Sandra Jane Hairston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jerry Industrious seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

relief on 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.    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 Industrious 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


     *
      To the extent that Industrious attempts to raise issues in
his informal brief that were not properly presented to the district
court, we note that he cannot raise them for the first time on
appeal.   See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).
