                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7128



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DARRYL JAMES FLOOD,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CR-02-413; CA-03-1475)


Submitted:   December 9, 2004          Decided:     December 15, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darryl James Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Joseph Rossi, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darryl James Flood seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(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 (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    Flood   has   not      made   the   requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.    We deny Flood’s motion to hold this appeal in abeyance for

two cases in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari.               See

United States v. Booker, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct. 11 (U.S. Aug. 2,

2004) (No. 04-104); United States v. Fanfan, __U.S.__, 125 S. Ct.

12 (U.S. Aug. 2, 2004) (No. 04-105).                 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 -
