                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6854



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ARTHUR BILLY COLEMAN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-02-2674; CA-04-2727-8-AW)


Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 5, 2005


Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Arthur Billy Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Hollis Raphael Weisman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Arthur B. Coleman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.      An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding 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 (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 Coleman has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.    We deny Coleman’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot.

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 -
