UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7993



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RICHARD LEE RICHIE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CA-04-425-7)


Submitted:   March 24, 2005                 Decided:   March 31, 2005


Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard Lee Richie, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Richard Lee Richie, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order finding his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion untimely.      This order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.            28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 

, 368-69, 374 n.7

(4th Cir. 2004).      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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong.              See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

           We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that   Richie   has   not   shown   the     district   court’s   finding   of

untimeliness to be debatable or wrong.            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 -