                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7961



HARVEY LEE WILLIAMS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-56)


Submitted:   April 28, 2004                 Decided:   June 16, 2004


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Harvey Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Harvey Lee Williams, 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, 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 Williams has not made the requisite

showing.      Accordingly, we 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 -
