UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-6102



JOHNNY MARROCCO WILLIAMS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-04-172-3)


Submitted:   April 14, 2005                 Decided:   April 21, 2005


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny Marrocco Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Johnny Marrocco Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’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 any dispositive procedural

rulings by the magistrate judge 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

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



      *
      The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                                  - 2 -