Rehearing granted, September 26, 2003




                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-7715



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BARRINGTON ISAACS,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-98-356, CA-01-2230-2-18)


Submitted:   June 19, 2003                 Decided:   June 24, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Barrington Isaacs, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Barrington Isaacs, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), denying his motion for reconsideration, and

denying his motion for relief.     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 Isaacs has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   We deny Isaacs’s motion for judicial notice.            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