                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7728



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TYRONE GLEATON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CR-01-871; CA-04-1537)


Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 1, 2005


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrone Gleaton, Appellant Pro Se.     William Kenneth Witherspoon,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Tyrone Gleaton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion.    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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Gleaton has not made the

requisite showing.

           Gleaton’s claim of error under Blakely v. Washington, 542

U.S. 296 (2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) (holding that Blakely

applies to federal sentencing guidelines), is available for post-

conviction relief for a federal prisoner whose conviction was final

before either of those cases was decided. United States v. Morris,

___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 2950 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005).


                                 - 2 -
              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




                                      - 3 -
