UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6876



JAMES A.G. BUNCH, JR.,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION;
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Superintendent at Odom
Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                              Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-974-5-H)


Submitted:   August 17, 2005                 Decided:   August 26, 2005


Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James A.G. Bunch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            James A.G. Bunch, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional    claims    is   debatable      or    wrong    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 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Bunch has not made the

requisite   showing.       Accordingly,    we   deny     the   motion     for   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 -