UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-6495



M. RODNEY E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones,
a/k/a Rodney M. Jones,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
JON E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney
General of South Carolina,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-03-2358-3)


Submitted:   February 25, 2005             Decided:   April 1, 2005


Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


M. Rodney E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky, SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).




                             - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

           M. Rodney E. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

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

habeas corpus 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 that Jones 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




                                   - 3 -