UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6931



MICHAEL PAGE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden (Sussex II State
Prison); UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,
(Michael J. Gaines, Chairman),

                                             Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-467-AM)


Submitted:   August 28, 2003            Decided:   September 10, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Page, Appellant Pro Se. Anita Claire Snyder, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Michael Page seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.                  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, 

,                  ,    

, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 

 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Page has not made the requisite showing. 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