                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7112



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL ANTHONY FARROW,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.   Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-230; CA-05-280-1)


Submitted:   October 18, 2005             Decided:   October 25, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Farrow, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael Anthony Farrow seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting and affirming the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing without prejudice Farrow’s 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 both

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings

by the district court are also debatable or wrong.            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 Farrow

has not made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Farrow’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, 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 -
