                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 04-6678



DAWUD YAMINI ISLAM,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


D.A. BRAXTON, Warden,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-03-174-3)


Submitted:   August 12, 2004                 Decided:   August 18, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dawud Yamini Islam, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Dawud Yamini Islam appeals from the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.    An appeal may

not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254

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 jurists of

reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Islam has

not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.       We further deny Islam’s

motion for appointment of counsel.     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 in the

decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                               - 2 -
