                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-6330



ANDRE NOEL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


CHARLES THOMPSON,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-02-502)


Submitted:    April 24, 2003                   Decided:   May 5, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andre Noel, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Andre Noel, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order* denying relief on 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).

When, as here, a magistrate judge dismisses a § 2254 petition

solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will

not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and

(2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”                  Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).               We have

reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge that Noel has not made the requisite showing. See

Noel       v.   Thompson,   No.   CA-02-502   (E.D.   Va.   Feb.   7,    2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal




       *
       The parties consented to proceed before a United States
magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).


                                        2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
