                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-7023



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             versus


ANTHONY F. MAZZA, JR.,        a/k/a   Andy,   a/k/a
Iceman, a/k/a Waterhead,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-96-124)


Submitted:    November 6, 2003            Decided:     November 18, 2003


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony F. Mazza, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Anthony F. Mazza seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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. 2001).                  We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mazza has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
