UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6661



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TALTON YOUNG GALLIMORE, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-99-365-JAB; CA-04-210)


Submitted:   October 21, 2005          Decided:     December 30, 2005


Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Talton Young Gallimore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Patrick
Auld, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Talton Young Gallimore, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    adopting     the   report    and   recommendation     of   the

magistrate judge and dismissing his petition 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

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 Gallimore 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 -