                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6076



HASSAN SHABAZZ, a/k/a R. Sydnor,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PAGE TRUE, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-04-361)


Submitted:   May 27, 2005                  Decided:   June 22, 2005


Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Hassan Shabazz, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Hassan Shabazz seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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, 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    Shabazz    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 -
