                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7434



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHARLES B. MITCHELL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
(CR-00-14, CA-01-78)


Submitted:   January 30, 2004          Decided:     February 23, 2004


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles B. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Charles B. Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge

and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).    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.    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    Mitchell   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 -
