                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7017



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


HARMON JONES,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-95-149, CA-03-576-5-H)


Submitted:   September 16, 2004       Decided:   September 23, 2004


Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harmon Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Harmon Jones seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) for

failure to state a claim.          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 or her 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 Jones 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 -
