                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-7546



FRANKLIN E. HALL,

                                            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 Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-03-1491-1)


Submitted:   December 9, 2004           Decided:     December 17, 2004


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Franklin E. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.      Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Franklin E. Hall 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 Hall 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 -
