                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7891



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


WILLIAM LAMONT SLATE, a/k/a Chicago,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-97-41; CA-04-127-4)


Submitted:   March 2, 2005                 Decided:   March 16, 2005


Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Lamont Slate, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Stephen David Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia; Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William Lamont Slate seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely 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, 336-38 (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 Slate 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 -
