                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7178



JAMES DION PALMER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-1762-AM)


Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 19, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Dion Palmer, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     James Dion Palmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition 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    Palmer   has    not     made     the    requisite      showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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
