UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6466



ALECK J. CARPITCHER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


TRACY RAY,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-313-7)


Submitted:   January 13, 2006          Decided:     February 13, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Bryan Amolsch, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.
Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Aleck J. Carpitcher seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

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 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   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

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Carpitcher 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 -