                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7115



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRODERICK EDWARD GRAVES,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-93-133; CA-04-397)


Submitted:   October 18, 2005             Decided:   October 25, 2005


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Noell P. Tin, TIN FULTON GREENE & OWEN, PLLC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Interim United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Broderick Edward Graves seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as late his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (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, 336-38 (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 Graves

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
