                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7909



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREGORY MARSHALL,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-99-
558-PJM; CA-02-2793-PJM)


Submitted:   March 19, 2004                 Decided:   April 7, 2004


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Gregory Marshall, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).         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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional      claims     is   debatable     or     wrong    and    that   any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Marshall 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 -
