                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6507



MARK ANTHONY MICHAEL,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PAGE TRUE, Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director
of Virginia Department of Corrections,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-04-216-1)


Submitted:   September 29, 2005           Decided:   October 5, 2005


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Anthony Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Mark A. Michael seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order denying relief on 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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, 336-38 (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 Michael

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 -
