UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6449



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GERALD EUGENE MICHAEL,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District         Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.          James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-177; CA-04-29-1)


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


Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gerald Eugene Michael, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Gerald Eugene Michael, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000); and denying his motions to amend and for

an evidentiary hearing.       An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 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   both   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 Michael

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Michael’s

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 -