                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7163



JAMES ANTONIO HODGE,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-683-7)


Submitted: January 15, 2004                 Decided:   January 27, 2004


Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Antonio Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             James Antonio Hodge appeals from the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion by the district court.              An appeal may

not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding

unless   a   circuit   judge    or   justice    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 reviewed the record and determine that Hodge has

not made the requisite showing.          See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336 (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 in the decisional process.



                                                                   DISMISSED




                                     - 2 -
