                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-6312



DAVID HENRY GINWRIGHT, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
02-231-PJM)


Submitted:   June 19, 2003                  Decided:   June 24, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Henry Ginwright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     David Henry Ginwright seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ginwright 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
