                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6945



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.


MATTHEW GOLDEN,

                  Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00319-CMC-1; 3:08-cv-70019-CMC)


Submitted:   August 21, 2008                 Decided:   August 27, 2008


Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Matthew Golden, Appellant Pro Se.    Leesa Washington, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           Matthew Golden seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               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     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.            Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Golden 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
