UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7165



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TERRENCE DARNELL SUMUEL,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-02-509; CA-05-579-1)


Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 6, 2005


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrence Darnell Sumuel, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Terrence Darnell Sumuel, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely.           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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record and conclude that Sumuel 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 -