                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-6116



RICARDO EVANS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-03-152-AM)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   April 1, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ricardo Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:

          Ricardo Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable 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 absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”             28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).     A prisoner satisfies 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, 336 (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 that Evans has not made the requisite showing.

          Accordingly, we deny Evans’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Evans’s motions

for judgment, to vacate the district court’s order and judgment,

for an evidentiary hearing, for appointment of appellate counsel,

and for a transcript at government expense.         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


                                 - 2 -
