UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 02-6279



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ERIC LAMONT WILSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-99-633, CA-01-4012-6-20)


Submitted:   April 29, 2003                 Decided:   May 13, 2003


Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eric Lamont Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III,
Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Eric Lamont Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).

The order is appealable only if 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, 

, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2001).                 We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson 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