UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-6620


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

JOHN RICHARD PROCTOR,

                  Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04-
cr-00160-RWT-1)


Submitted:    July 23, 2009                 Decided:   July 30, 2009


Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Richard Proctor, Appellant Pro Se.    Steven M. Dunne,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               John    Richard    Proctor         seeks    to    appeal   the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2009)    motion.        The     order      is    not    appealable      unless     a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).                    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)      (2006).         A

prisoner       satisfies        this        standard       by    demonstrating           that

reasonable       jurists      would     find      that     any     assessment       of     the

constitutional         claims    by    the    district      court    is   debatable         or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.                  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 Proctor 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