UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-6248



JOSEPH W. GUILBEAUX, III,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1128-1)


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


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kristie Lee Kane, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Leah
Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Joseph    Wilson   Guilbeaux,    III,    seeks    to    appeal    the

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 Guilbeaux 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 -