                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6666



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


VASU D. ARORA,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-72-1, CA-01-305-7)


Submitted:   September 30, 2003           Decided:   October 7, 2003


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Vasu D. Arora 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,                 , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Arora has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we

deny   a   certificate   of    appealability     and    dismiss     the   appeal.

Additionally, we deny Arora’s petition for mandamus relief, and

deny his motion for production of documents. 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
