                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6131



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JULIUS NIGEL FREDERICKS, a/k/a Mike Williams,
a/k/a Mike Francis,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-02-150; CA-04-475-2)


Submitted:   May 12, 2005                   Decided:   May 18, 2005


Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Julius Nigel Fredericks, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Julius Nigel Fredericks seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

untimely.      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 Fredericks 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
