                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6227



DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


JOHN ASHCROFT; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-04-230-L)


Submitted: May 12, 2005                     Decided:   May 18, 2005


Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Duncan    Victor       Ayemere    Idokogi   seeks    to   appeal     the

district   court’s    order        denying    relief   on      his   motion     for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

habeas corpus 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); see

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).

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     the   constitutional     claims    is

debatable or wrong 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 Idokogi

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 -
