UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6083



DARRYL JONES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDDIE PEARSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-04-1017-1)


Submitted:   June 9, 2005                  Decided:   June 15, 2005


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darryl Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darryl Jones, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s

order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).          An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we   deny    Jones’   motion   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 -