                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-6613



ROGELIO ALONSO CASTELLON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-30)


Submitted:   November 29, 2004            Decided:   January 18, 2005


Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rogelio Alonso Castellon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Rogelio Alonso Castellon, a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).            An appeal may not be taken

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

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 the

district     court’s   assessment   of   his     constitutional     claims    is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.              See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (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

Castellon 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 -
