UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7786



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GREGORY C. JOHNSON, JR.,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CR-01-56; CA-04-112-7)


Submitted:   February 24, 2005             Decided:    March 8, 2005


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory C. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Frank DeArmon Whitney,
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mark J. Griffith,
MARINE CORPS BASE, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Gregory C. Johnson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000).          The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.               28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(l) (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   Johnson   has   not   made    the   requisite

showing.    Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s motions for stay and for

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 -