UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6291



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


CYRIACUS AKAS,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-
91-0305-JFM)


Submitted:   July 21, 2004                 Decided:   August 5, 2004


Before LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cyriacus Akas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Cyriacus Akas, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).     The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 

, 366

(4th Cir. 2004).    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 find that Akas 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 -