UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7489



WILLIAM T. ROBINSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-1273)


Submitted:   November 20, 2002           Decided:   December 16, 2002


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William T. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William T. Robinson 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 reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Robinson

has not made the requisite showing.   See Robinson v. Virginia, No.

CA-01-1273 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2002).      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