                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6583



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RANDY W. GHOLSON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-99-247)


Submitted:   August 28, 2003             Decided:    September 4, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Randy W. Gholson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Shannon
Leigh Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Randy W. Gholson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 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,

  , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (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   Gholson    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
