UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6734

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN FRASER MAGILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-6763

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN FRASER MAGILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-129; CA-04-510-7)

Submitted: September 29, 2005 Decided: October 7, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Fraser Magill, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Ramseyer, United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

John Fraser Magill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under

(2000), and a subsequent order denying his motion for the

production of transcripts. The orders are not appealable 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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is 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 Magill has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We further deny Magill’s motion for preparation of

transcript at government expense. 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

- 3 -