                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-6488



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EDWIN PEREZ,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-99-124)(CA-02-122-3)


Submitted:     July 15, 2004                 Decided:   July 21, 2004


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mary Katherine Martin, ELIADES & ELIADES, Hopewell, Virginia, for
Appellant. N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Edwin Perez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.           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 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 Perez has not made the

requisite     showing.   Accordingly,    we   deny   a    certificate   of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.      We also deny the motion to

amend the certificate of appealability.         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 -
