                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7419



DANIEL R. DAVIS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-701-7; CA-03-139)


Submitted: January 29, 2004                 Decided:   February 6, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel R. Davis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Daniel R. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).   An appeal may not be taken 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, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)).   We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Davis 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 the decisional process.



                                                          DISMISSED




                               - 2 -
