UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7874



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JOHN ELWOOD BUCKNER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.   Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CR-00-398; CA-05-705-2-PMD)


Submitted: February 16, 2006              Decided: February 23, 2006


Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Elwood Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant
United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          John Elwood Buckner seeks to appeal the district court’s

judgment denying as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The judgment 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 Buckner has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   We also deny his motion to compel defense counsel to

provide certain materials from his trial.          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 -