                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7531



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MARK DIPADOVA, a/k/a Mark Voiers, a/k/a Jack
Norris,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-127; CA-02-1045-0-10)


Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided:   February 6, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark DiPadova, Appellant Pro Se. Dean Arthur Eichelberger, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Mark DiPadova seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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 DiPadova 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 -
