                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6467



LUIS EDWIN DELGADO,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


                             No. 04-6782



LUIS EDWIN DELGADO,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-428-3)


Submitted:   June 24, 2004                  Decided:   July 1, 2004


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Luis Edwin Delgado, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).




                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

           Luis E. Delgado seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying

his motion for a certificate of appealability.       Delgado cannot

appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

appellant meets 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,

326 (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 Delgado 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




                                - 3 -
