                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6870



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ALBERT GARY TAYLOR,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-00-127-A, CA-03-573-1)


Submitted:   September 19, 2003           Decided:   October 14, 2003


Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Albert Gary Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Rich, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Albert Gary Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing the motion.            An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 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 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,             ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001).

      We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Taylor 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
