UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6715



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,


          versus


JAMES CAUTHEN WARTHEN, JR., a/k/a Marando
Edwin Warthen, a/k/a James Carthen Warthen,
a/k/a Figre,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-03-370; CA-04-1487)


Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 2, 2005


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Cauthen Warthen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles
Erickson, Jr., Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           James Cauthen Warthen, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2255 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   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   Warthen    has   not   made    the     requisite

showing.   Accordingly, we deny Warthen’s 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 -