                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6463



DENNY C. MELTON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


S. K. YOUNG,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-759-7)


Submitted:   October 15, 2003             Decided:   December 9, 2003


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Denny C. Melton, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Denny    C.    Melton,    a   state       prisoner,     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,                      ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude      that   Melton     has    not       made   the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny Melton’s motion for appointment of counsel,

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
