UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6859



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ORELUS ORRELIEN, a/k/a Jerome Jean,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CR-98-7, CA-00-692)


Submitted:   October 31, 2003          Decided:     November 10, 2003


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Orelus Orrelien, Appellant Pro Se. Michel Gordon James, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Orelus Orrelien seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

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, 

,

  , 

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).     We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Orrelien

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