UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6246



MICHAEL JEROME VEST,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-237)


Submitted:   August 18, 2005                 Decided:   August 24, 2005


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Jerome Vest, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Michael Jerome Vest seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) in

which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a due

process violation.      An appeal may not be taken from the final order

in a § 2254 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).        Vest 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 -