                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7700



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JERRY JEFFERSON SEXTON,

                                               Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.  Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (CR-97-9; CA-00-578-7)


Submitted:   December 16, 2004            Decided:   December 28, 2004


Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jerry Jefferson Sexton, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Jerry Jefferson Sexton, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The orders are 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 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Sexton 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 -
