UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7810



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


SALVATORE COTTONE, a/k/a Sal,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CR-89-102)


Submitted:   May 28, 2004                  Decided:   June 14, 2004


Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Salvatore Cottone, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W. Williams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Salvatore Cottone seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion that the court construed as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                  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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the

record    and    conclude      that   Cottone   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 -