                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-6175



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LORENZO GRODE MARTIN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-00-226; CA-03-862-A)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   April 2, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lorenzo Grode Martin, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom,
Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Lorenzo Grode Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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.    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 Martin 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 -
