164 F. App'x 462 - United States v. Wright

                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7900



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


JEFFREY ALAN WRIGHT,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-495; CR-99-223)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jeffrey Alan Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Chastain Wicker, Tara
L. McGregor, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Jeffrey Alan Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed 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,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Wright 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 -