UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6738



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DANNY RAY SHAFER,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-82-112-R-H, CA-03-249-7)


Submitted:   June 19, 2003                  Decided:   June 26, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Danny Ray Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Danny Ray Shafer seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief without prejudice 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 Shafer 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