UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6401



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JAMES ALEXANDER BENSON, a/k/a Jamie Benson,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-626, CA-02-67-3-20)


Submitted:   July 10, 2003                 Decided:    July 16, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Alexander Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      James Alexander Benson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denying

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

denying reconsideration.       The orders are 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, 

 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

 (2001).             We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benson 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