UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ALLEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                      No. 00-6903

JOHN TAYLOR, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-00-117)

Submitted: September 20, 2000

Decided: October 10, 2000

Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions by
unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Michael Allen seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's* order deny-
ing relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2254 (West 1994
& Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate
judge's opinion and have determined that additional factual determi-
nations are required regarding Allen's claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel on appeal, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe
v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1029 (2000). Because the
analysis prescribed by Roe is highly fact-specific, we conclude that
it should be performed by the district court in the first instance.
Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability as to Allen's
claim of ineffective assistance relating to counsel's failure to demand
review by a panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia or petition the
Supreme Court of Virginia for review, vacate the portions of the mag-
istrate judge's order relating to that issue, and remand for further con-
sideration in light of Roe.

We have reviewed the magistrate judge's disposition of Allen's
remaining claims and find no reversible error. We therefore deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of
the district court as to those claims. See Allen v. Taylor, No. CA-00-
117 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2000). We deny Allen's motion for oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
_________________________________________________________________
*The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).

                     2
