                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6052



QUINCE D. GIVENS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DAVID ROBINSON, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-1355-AM)


Submitted:   July 10, 2003                  Decided:   July 15, 2003


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Quince D. Givens, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Quince Givens, a Virginia prisoner, 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).    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.) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001).    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

Givens has not made the requisite showing.           See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (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
