UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7870



MISTY DAWN RIVERS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE   OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA;  HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CA-03-492-8-18BI)


Submitted: February 12, 2004              Decided:   February 23, 2004


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Misty Dawn Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Misty Dawn Rivers seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding 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 her constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Rivers has not made the

requisite     showing.    Accordingly,    we   deny   a   certificate   of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also note that Rivers has

raised several claims for the first time on appeal, which we

decline to address.      See Muth v. United States, 

, 250

(4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for first time on appeal

are generally not considered absent exceptional circumstances). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions




                                 - 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                     DISMISSED




                              - 3 -