UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-7732



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BERNARD DISTANCE-BEY,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-236-L, CA-98-1546-L)


Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 17, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bernard Distance-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Bernard Distance-Bey 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, 

, 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 Distance-Bey

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Distance-

Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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