                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6042



CARL STANLEY AIKEN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COLIE    RUSHTON,    Warden   of    McCormick
Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-04-99-6-13AK)


Submitted:   May 25, 2005                   Decided:   June 3, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carl Stanley Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Carl Stanley Aiken, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       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

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 Aiken 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 -
