UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-7073



ROBIN FRIEDHOFF,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-405)


Submitted:    October 23, 2003               Decided:   October 30, 2003


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robin Friedhoff, Appellant Pro Se.    Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Robin Friedhoff 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 § 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, 

,

  , 

, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).     We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Friedhoff

has not made the requisite showing.       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