                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-6044



RAYMOND ANTHONY WINKLER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of
Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-165-1)


Submitted:   April 14, 2005                 Decided:   April 20, 2005


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Anthony Winkler, Appellant Pro Se.       Robert H. Anderson,
III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Raymond Anthony Winkler, a Virginia 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 habeas corpus 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, 336 (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   Winkler   has   not   made   the   requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny Winkler’s motion for 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 -
