UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7446



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRYANT JONES,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CR-00-240)


Submitted:   November 18, 2004            Decided:   December 1, 2004


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bryant Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Bryant Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion for a certificate of appealability to appeal the

court’s denial of relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(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    Jones   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 -