                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6978



JAMES DENARD SARRATT,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-137-8; CA-02-219-2-3)


Submitted:   September 27, 2005           Decided:   October 3, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Denard Sarratt, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Steven Cromwell,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               James Denard Sarratt, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order and judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion.          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    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 (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 Sarratt 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 -
