                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6324



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHESTER FLETCHER WALLACE,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-187; CA-03-290)


Submitted:   July 19, 2004                 Decided:   August 9, 2004


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chester Fletcher Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Chester Fletcher Wallace 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 Wallace has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -
