                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7752



VERNON ANDREWS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GARY   MAYNARD,   Director,  South   Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES M. CONDON,
Attorney General of South Carolina; COLIE
RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional
Institution,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-03-84)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   March 31, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vernon Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Vernon Andrews seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

The order is not appealable 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.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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   Andrews   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 -
