UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6429



DONALD DEMRAS PARKER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


ERNEST SUTTON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-218-5-BO)


Submitted:   June 19, 2003                 Decided:   June 25, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Donald Demras Parker, Appellant Pro Se.     Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Donald Demras Parker 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 to this court from the final

order   in    a   habeas   corpus   proceeding   in   which    the   detention

complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”      28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).      As to claims dismissed by

a district court 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 Parker has not satisfied either standard.              See Miller- El v.

Cockrell, 

(2003).          Accordingly, we deny Parker’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We   dispense     with   oral   argument   because    the   facts    and   legal


                                       2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                           DISMISSED




                                3