                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6210



DAVID EDWARD MCCORD,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE   JOHNSON,    Director,     Department   of
Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-88-3)


Submitted:   June 27, 2005                    Decided:   July 27, 2005


Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. John H. McLees, Jr., Margaret Winslow
Reed, Judith Williams Jagdmann, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              David Edward McCord, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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    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 McCord 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 -
