UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-7764



RONALD ADDISON-EL, a/k/a Rodney Addison-El,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ROBERT KUPEC; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-02-2653-L)


Submitted:   March 6, 2003                 Decided:   March 13, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronald Addison-El, Appellant Pro Se.    John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Ronald Addison-El, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”                Rose v.

Lee, 

, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 

 (2001).              We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Addison-El has

not made the requisite showing.             See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

U.S.       , 

, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-

7662).     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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