UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7267



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CHARLIE LEE DAVIS, a/k/a Chuck,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CR-97-4, CA-01-169)


Submitted:   October 23, 2003             Decided:   October 31, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charlie Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Charlie Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.   Davis cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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, 

,

  , 

, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).       We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude Davis 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



     *
       To the extent Davis seeks to raise for the first time on
appeal issues not properly presented to the district court, we find
that they are waived. Muth v. United States, 

, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).

                                  2