UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6678



WILLIAM THOMAS POPE, III,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SAM PRUETT, Warden; GENE JOHNSON, Director of
Department of Corrections,

                                              Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-384-1)


Submitted:   August 18, 2005                 Decided:   August 25, 2005


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Thomas Pope, III, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           William Thomas Pope, III, 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

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 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pope

has not made the requisite showing.         Accordingly, we deny Pope’s

motions 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 -