UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6530



ROYALE LEE STEWART,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-335-2)


Submitted:   August 28, 2003                 Decided:   October 14, 2003


Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Royale Lee Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Royale Lee Stewart 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 to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court 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 dismissed by a district

court 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel,   

,   484   (2000)).          We   have   independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not satisfied

either standard.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

(2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the




                                         2
appeal.*   See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).   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




     *
       To the extent Stewart seeks to raise for the first time on
appeal issues not properly presented to the district court, we find
they are waived. Muth v. United States, 

, 250 (4th Cir.
1993).


                                3