UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 05-6535



REGINALD HOLLINGSWORTH,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-296-5)


Submitted:   August 25, 2005             Decided:   September 1, 2005


Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reginald Hollingsworth, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Reginald Hollingsworth seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).    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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong 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, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We   have   independently   reviewed   the   record   and    conclude   that

Hollingsworth 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 -