                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6741



JOHNNY LEE LUCAS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden of Evans Correctional
Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General
of the State of South Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.   G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-03-330-0-13BD)


Submitted:   September 16, 2004        Decided:   September 22, 2004


Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnny Lee Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Johnny Lee Lucas 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

habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court 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 on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by the district

court 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)).      We   have   independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Lucas has not satisfied

either standard.        See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003).     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.       See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).          We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are


                                       - 2 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.



                                                         DISMISSED




                              - 3 -
