UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7219



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GLENN LEE WILLIAMS,

                                              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-95-136-F; CA-98-513-5-F)


Submitted:   March 25, 2005                 Decided:   April 15, 2005


Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Glenn Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Glenn Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).     The order is not appealable 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, 

, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).           We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Williams 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 -