                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7860



SAM KING, a/k/a Sam Cain,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


JON E. OZMINT, Director of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(CA-04-753-2-27)


Submitted:   April 28, 2005                    Decided:   May 4, 2005


Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sam King, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Sam King seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that King 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 -
