UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-7573



JAMAL A. AZEEZ,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JAMES RUBENSTEIN,   Commissioner;    WILLIAM   S.
HAINES, Warden,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.  David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-252-5)


Submitted:   April 27, 2005                    Decided:   May 13, 2005


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamal A. Azeez, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jamal A. Azeez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                      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 Azeez 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 -