UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6434



JAMES ROBERT STEVENSON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY; CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden, Lee
Correctional    Institution;   HENRY    DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-
04-1465-HFF)


Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 4, 2005


Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Robert Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              James Robert Stevenson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on 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

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

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

the record and conclude that Stevenson 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 -