                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6883



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CURTIS D. DAVIS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.   Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (CR-99-55)


Submitted:   July 15, 2004                 Decided:   July 23, 2004


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Curtis D. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Richard Murphy, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Curtis D. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to vacate the judgment.                  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,

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 Davis 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 -
