UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-6451



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


EDDIE THOMAS JACKSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-00-607; CA-02-4170-12-4)


Submitted:   April 30, 2004                 Decided:    May 21, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Eddie Thomas Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.  Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Eddie Thomas Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                        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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record   and     conclude     that   Jackson    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 -