                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-7287



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


OSCAR CARBAJAL,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CR-01-60; CA-03-402-7-SGW)


Submitted:   August 26, 2005             Decided:   September 9, 2005


Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Oscar Carbajal, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Oscar Carbajal, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.    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 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 Carbajal 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 -
