UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 05-6226



PRENTISS PICKENS EMMONS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-366-7)


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


Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Prentiss Pickens Emmons, Appellant Pro Se.    Virginia Bidwell
Theisen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Prentiss Pickens Emmons seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 Emmons 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 -