UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6623



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREG BURNELL KING,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CR-98-150)


Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 20, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Greg Burnell King, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Greg Burnell King seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

and denying reconsideration of that order.       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, 

, 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 King 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