UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7923



REBECCA L. SHORTRIDGE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-240-7)


Submitted:   March 11, 2004                 Decided:   March 18, 2004


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rebecca L. Shortridge, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ransom Franklin,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Rebecca   L.    Shortridge      seeks   to   appeal        the    district

court’s order denying relief on her 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   her

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 Shortridge 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 -