                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7583



LELAND HUMBERT,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-2174-4-17BH)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   March 30, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leland Humbert, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Leland Humbert 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 a 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).        We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Humbert 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).       Humbert raises additional issues in

his   informal   brief.     However,   because   these   claims   were   not


                                  - 2 -
previously raised in the district court, we decline to consider

such claims on 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 -
