                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7542



OTIS LEE WEAVER, JR.,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-125)


Submitted:    April 24, 2003                    Decided:   May 1, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Otis Lee Weaver, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying

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

appeal may not be taken to this court 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 dismissed by

a district court solely on procedural grounds 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).   We have independently reviewed the

record and find that Weaver has not satisfied this standard.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039

(2003). 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
