                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-8010


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

TERRANCE J. ADAMS,

                  Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00285-HEH-1; 3:07-cv-00690-HEH)


Submitted:    January 13, 2009               Decided:   January 20, 2009


Before WILLIAMS,     Chief   Judge,   and   TRAXLER   and   KING,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrance J. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Terrance J. Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                           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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.                          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   Adams      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
