                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6770



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EMMANUEL S. MCCRAE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CR-01-106; CA-03-420)


Submitted:   November 23, 2005         Decided:     December 12, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell Corpening,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Emmanuel S. McCrae, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as untimely filed under § 2255 ¶ 6(4).             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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are also debatable or wrong.        See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 McCrae 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 -
