                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-7183



JAMES A. COCHRAN,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-1415-AM)


Submitted:   February 27, 2004             Decided:   March 24, 2004


Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James A. Cochran, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 A. Cochran 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 from the final order in a

§ 2254 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 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.    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    Cochran    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 -
