UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6945



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


DARRELL ANTHONY RATHBURN,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.  Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-99-91, CA-01-300)


Submitted:   October 29, 2003          Decided:     November 25, 2003


Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell Anthony Rathburn, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer         Marie
Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,         North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darrell Anthony Rathburn seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).     The order is appealable only if 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, 

,                   , 

, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose   v.    Lee,   

,   683   (4th     Cir.    2001).      We   have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rathburn 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