                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6310



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


KITTRELL BERNARD DECATOR,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
95-202; CA-03-1958-CCB)


Submitted:   June 24, 2004                  Decided:   July 1, 2004


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kittrell Bernard Decator, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Kittrell Bernard Decator appeals the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or

amend the judgment.            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   Decator   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 -
