                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6471



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMES E. ROGERS, a/k/a James Harley Rogers,
a/k/a Ricky Duvall,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CR-92-154; CA-05-469-MJG)


Submitted:   July 29, 2005                 Decided:   August 17, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James E. Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James E. Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely.

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 Rogers has not made the

requisite     showing.   Accordingly,    we   deny   a   certificate   of

appealability and dismiss his 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 -
