UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-7641



MASON THOMPSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.




                            No. 99-7642



MASON THOMPSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. James E. Bradberry, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-99-846, CA-99-847)
Submitted:   January 20, 2000           Decided:   February 2, 2000


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mason Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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




                                2
PER CURIAM:

     In these consolidated cases, Mason Thompson appeals the mag-

istrate judge’s orders denying his motions for evidentiary hearings

on his two pendings habeas corpus petitions.    We dismiss the ap-

peals for lack of jurisdiction because the orders are not appeal-

able. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

 (1949). The orders here

appealed are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or

collateral orders.

     We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals

as interlocutory. 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