UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6200



ANTHONY SMITH,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


WILLIAM WHITE, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-894-0-23BD)


Submitted:   July 27, 2005                 Decided:   August 3, 2005


Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Anthony Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.               The order

is not appealable 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, 

, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record and conclude that Smith 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