UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6236



DANIEL A. MAJETTE,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


RONALD   J.   ANGELONE,  Director,       Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-494)


Submitted:    May 29, 2003                     Decided:   June 4, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel A. Majette, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Daniel Majette, 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). A certificate of

appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.”   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).    As to

claims a district court dismisses 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 independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Majette has not satisfied either standard.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

 (2003). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.     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 in the decisional process.




                                                     DISMISSED




                                3