text:                                 UNPUBLISHED
  
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
  
  
                                  No. 05-6887
  
  
  
  JIMMIE L. HARRIS,
  
                                                    Petitioner -Appellant,
  
            versus
  
  
  ROY COOPER,    The   Attorney   General   of   North
  Carolina,
  
                                                    Respondent - Appellee.
  
  
  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
  District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
  District Judge. (CA-01-142)
  
  
  Submitted:    October 31, 2005             Decided:    December 12, 2005
  
  
  Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
  
  
  Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
  
  
  Jimmie L. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
  NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
  Appellee.
  
  
  Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
  See Local Rule 36(c).
  PER CURIAM:
  
              Jimmie Lee Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
  
  order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
  
  (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 Harris has not made the requisite showing.
  
  Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
  
  appeal.     We also deny Harris’ motion for a copy of a physical
  
  examination.       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 -
  