                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7745



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DESMOND WARD, a/k/a David A. King,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-29; CA-00-257-3-1-MU)


Submitted:   March 11, 2004                 Decided: March 18, 2004


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Stephen Howard Rosen, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Frank DeArmon
Whitney, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Desmond Ward seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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   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 Ward 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 -
