                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7841



DERRICK JACKSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State
of South Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-03-2122-22AK)


Submitted:   March 24, 2005                 Decided:   March 30, 2005


Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.    Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Derrick Jackson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).              The order is not appealable 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    the     district      court’s      assessment        of     his

constitutional      claims      is    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   Jackson   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 -
