                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7757



JOHNNY CALVIN OLLIS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID MITCHELL,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (CA-03-639)


Submitted:   April 20, 2005                 Decided:    May 12, 2005


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny Calvin Ollis, Appellant Pro Se.      Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Johnny Calvin Ollis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(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

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, 336-38 (2003);

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

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ollis 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 -
