UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7407



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ANTHONY LEE SCOTT,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-94-1; CA-04-367)


Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 3, 2005


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Lee Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Anthony Lee Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion, which was

construed as a successive 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); see

Reid v. Angelone, 

 (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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional   claims   is   debatable   and   that   any   dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record and conclude that Scott 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