                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7970



ANDRE EUGENE EVANS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-03-575)


Submitted: February 12, 2004              Decided:   February 23, 2004


Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andre Eugene Evans, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Andre Eugene Evans seeks to appeal the district court’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

§ 2254 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 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 Evans has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Evans’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 -
