UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6803



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


GERALD JEROME RICE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-00-31-CCB; CA-05-965-CCB)


Submitted:   November 16, 2005            Decided:   December 7, 2005


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gerald Jerome Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,
United States Attorney, Lynne Ann Battaglia, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Gerald Jerome Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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    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 Rice 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 -