                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7539



LARRY CHARLES ALLEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DERRICK WADSWORTH,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-644)


Submitted:   February 6, 2003          Decided:     February 12, 2003


Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Charles Alley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Larry Charles Alley, a state prisoner, 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 to this court

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).   When, as here, a

district court dismisses a § 2241 petition 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)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).     We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Alley

has not made the requisite showing.   See Alley v. Waddsworth, No.

CA-01-644 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2002).       Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.   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
