                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6379



JERRY PAUL COOPER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
04-2704)


Submitted:   June 23, 2005                 Decided:   June 30, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerry Paul Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jerry Paul Cooper, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) motion.     This order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004).     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 findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.           See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 Cooper 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 -
