                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7153



LUKE ALLEN,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JOSEPH M. BROOKS, Warden,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District         Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.          James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-03-912-1)


Submitted:    October 14, 2004             Decided:   October 22, 2004


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luke Allen, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Luke Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),

but construed by the district court as a motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).         We find that the district court properly

construed Allen’s motion as one filed under § 2255.              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, 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 Allen has not made the requisite

showing.      Accordingly, we deny Allen’s motion for 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 -
