                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7703



MICHAEL HAAS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JACK LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional
Center,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-572-3)


Submitted:   March 26, 2004                 Decided:   April 13, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Frederick Robert Gerson, ROBINSON & GERSON, P.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant.    John H. McLees, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Michael Haas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition as untimely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).    The order is not appealable 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, 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 independently reviewed the record and

conclude     that       Haas   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 -
