                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7709



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRUCE WAYNE TART,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CR-00-106; CA-02-2-1)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   March 30, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bruce Wayne Tart, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Bruce Wayne Tart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (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 Tart has not made the

requisite showing.    Accordingly, we deny Tart’s motion for a

certificate of appealability, deny his motion for 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 -
