UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7413

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY MCCLAIN, a/k/a Ice, a/k/a New York,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-96-179)

Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony McClain, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Scarlett Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony McClain seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his motion as having been filed under

(2000) and denying the motion as successive. We find the

court correctly construed the motion as having been filed under

§ 2255. 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.

(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

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

record and conclude that McClain has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny McClain’s motion for a stay. 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 -