UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-8013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARK BENJAMIN HEMPHILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd and Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judges. (CR-99-659; CA-04-890)

Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Benjamin Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mark Benjamin Hemphill seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

(2000) as untimely. 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 Hemphill has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Hemphill’s motion for production of documents, 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 -