                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6450



TYRONE COLBERT,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


PATRICK CONROY, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN,
JR., Attorney General of the State of
Maryland,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
01-1638-8-DKC)


Submitted:   May 15, 2003                   Decided:   May 28, 2003


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrone Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Tyrone Colbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.     Colbert cannot

appeal this order 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

petitioner 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,      U.S.   ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

535 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude Colbert 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




                                  2
