                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6926



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester
Hawkins,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-565-AW, CA-02-3096-AW)


Submitted:   July 18, 2003                 Decided:   August 11, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, a federal prisoner, 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   both   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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th    Cir.),    cert.   denied,    534     U.S.   941   (2001).     We     have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins 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
