UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6134



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MAURICE EDGAR MCKENZIE,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-97-32, CA-01-4700-9)


Submitted:   May 15, 2003                   Decided:   May 22, 2003


Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Maurice Edgar McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Maurice Edgar McKenzie seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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 for claims addressed by a district

court    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 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, 

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that McKenzie 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