UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-6569



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


FREDERICK BERNARD WILLIAMS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-00-137-1)


Submitted:   September 11, 2003        Decided:   September 17, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frederick Bernard Williams, Appellant Pro Se.       James Ashford
Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Frederick Bernard Williams, a federal prisoner, 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    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, 

,                  , 

, 1039-40 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 

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

 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Williams 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