                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-6095



JOHN MOCK, a/k/a Eric Washington,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-786-5-FO)


Submitted:   April 24, 2003                    Decided:   May 2, 2003


Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Mock, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John Mock 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 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).

When   a   district   court   dismisses    a    habeas     petition    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. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).              We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Mock has not made the

requisite showing.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell,              U.S.    , 123 S.

Ct.    1029   (2003).     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
