UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7962



DARRELL L. RICKS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JAMES PEQUESE, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(CA-03-131)


Submitted:   April 15, 2004                 Decided:   April 22, 2004


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darrell L. Ricks, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Darrell L. Ricks seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000), and denying reconsideration.       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

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, 

, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

record and conclude that Ricks has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,   we   deny   Ricks’   motion   for   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 -