                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6987



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOHN VINCENT MARINO, II,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-28; CA-04-3)


Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 28, 2005


Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Vincent Marino, II, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          John Vincent Marino, II, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on 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 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 (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 Marino 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 -
