UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-7676



RICHARD S. MAULICK,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WARDEN EDWARDS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1106-7)


Submitted:   June 24, 2004                  Decided:   June 29, 2004


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Richard S. Maulick, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard S. Maulick, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition.      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 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, 

,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 

, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Maulick 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 -