                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6922



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


LORENZO ADDERLY,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CR-95-74; CA-05-380)


Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 28, 2005


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lorenzo Adderly, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Lorenzo Adderly seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 Adderly

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 -
