UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7061



ALEJANDRE D’CARLOS TABB,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDDIE LEE PEARSON, Warden,
Sussex II State Prison,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-91-7)


Submitted:   December 23, 2004             Decided:   January 12, 2005


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alejandre D’Carlos   Tabb, Appellant Pro Se.    Thomas Drummond
Bagwell, Assistant   Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Alejandre D’Carlos Tabb seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a § 2254 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 Tabb 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 -