                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7850



LAWRENCE DAVIS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RICKIE HARRISON; CHARLES M. CONDON,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-1940-9)


Submitted: February 19, 2004              Decided:   February 26, 2004



Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lawrence Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Lawrence Davis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).          An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a habeas corpus 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

for claims addressed by a district court 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     Davis   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 -
