                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6089



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MICHAEL Y. DAVIS, a/k/a Numba, a/k/a Jamaican
Mike,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-01-120; CA-04-1183-1)


Submitted:   November 28, 2005            Decided:   January 10, 2006


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stephen Douglas Halfhill, ALLRED, BACON, HALFHILL, LANDAU & YOUNG,
Fairfax, Virginia; Page Anthony Pate, Atlanta, Georgia, for
Appellant.    Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Michael Y. Davis 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, 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 Davis 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 -
