                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6946




BASILIO ZAMORA,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WARDEN,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-04-723-1)


Submitted: December 15, 2005              Decided:   December 21, 2005



Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Basilio Zamora, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Basilio Zamora, 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     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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Zamora has not made the

requisite showing.       Accordingly, we deny Zamora’s motion for a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.               We also deny

Zamora’s motion to correct a transcript and 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 -
