UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7714



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


RICARDO ANTONIO DE LOS SANTOS-MORA,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CR-96-49; CA-04-98)


Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 4, 2005


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricardo Antonio De Los Santos-Mora, Appellant Pro Se.    Robert
Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ricardo Antonio De Los Santos-Mora seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 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 De Los Santos-Mora 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 -