                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7485



CARL JEFFREYS,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


JAY HAYNES, Superintendent        of   the   Caswell
Correctional Center,

                                                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-612-5-HO)


Submitted:    December 19, 2002                Decided:   January 6, 2003


Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carl Jeffreys, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Carl Jeffreys, 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 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 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.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).           We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Jeffreys

has not made the requisite showing. See Jeffreys v. Haynes, No. CA-

01-612-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2002); see also Davis v. Allsbrooks,

778 F.2d 168, 174-76 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Wainwright

v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977), bar of federal habeas review

applies   when   a   state   court   has    found   a   procedural   default


                                     2
regardless of whether the state court alternatively has discussed

the merits).     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
