                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6642



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BERNARD CELESTINE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CR-95-41-H; CA-04-16-H)


Submitted:   December 2, 2005          Decided:     December 28, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Celestine, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Bernard Troy Celestine seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).      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 both 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

Celestine 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 -
