                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6366



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DARRYL GRIFFIN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-98-9-4; CA-03-4-47-H)


Submitted:   June 10, 2004                  Decided:   June 18, 2004


Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darryl Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.     Jane J. Jackson, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Darryl Griffin, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), as untimely, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion.    The orders are 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 (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   Griffin   has   not   made    the    requisite

showing.       Accordingly, we deny certificates 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 -
