UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7853



ALLAIN DELONT NORMAN,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director        of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-02-127-2)


Submitted:    April 29, 2003                      Decided:   May 28, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Allain Delont Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Allain Delont Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

(2000).   The order is appealable only if 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. § 23(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, 

, 040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

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

 (2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norman has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Norman’s motions

for appointment of counsel, for an evidentiary hearing, and for

oral argument.    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