                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6995



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TYRELL DANTE BROWN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CR-00-94, CA-02-436-2)


Submitted:   November 6, 2003          Decided:     November 20, 2003


Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrell Dante Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Tyrell Dante Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.              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,              , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (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 Brown 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
