UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 05-7261



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


MARTEZ COLEMAN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-506; CA-05-1229-3)


Submitted: January 19, 2006                 Decided:   January 25, 2006


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Martez Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United
States Attorney, Stacey Denise Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Martez Coleman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion.     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   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 Coleman 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 -