                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6301



LEON PATT FERGUSON EL,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON, Director for the Department of
Correction of Virginia,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-345-2)


Submitted:   June 23, 2004                 Decided:   July 12, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leon Patt Ferguson El, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Leon Patt Ferguson El appeals from the dismissal of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.           An appeal

may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of

reason 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, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

            We have reviewed the record and conclude that Ferguson El

has   not   made   the   requisite    showing.       We   therefore   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 -
