                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6711



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ARTIS SANGRIA MCGRAW,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CR-
02-239-MBS; CA-04-22112-HFF)


Submitted:   September 29, 2005           Decided:   October 7, 2005


Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Artis Sangria McGraw, Appellant Pro Se.       Alan Lance Crick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Artis Sangria McGraw, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

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

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as duplicative of another § 2255 motion

that is ongoing in the district court.         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 both 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 (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 McGraw 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 -
