UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7985



MORRIS BERNARD CRANDLE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ERNEST SUTTON, Superintendent,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-78-H-5)


Submitted:   March 10, 2005                 Decided:   March 15, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Morris Bernard Crandle, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Morris Bernard Crandle seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude Crandle has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   We also deny Crandle’s motion to appoint counsel.                   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 -