                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6177



DEVIN LANARD PHILLIPS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


A. D. 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-01-1124-AM)


Submitted:   June 27, 2003                  Decided:   July 9, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Devin Lanard Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.      Susan Mozley Harris,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Devin Lanard Phillips, a state 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)

(2200).    A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court 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   both   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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683

(4th    Cir.),    cert.   denied,   534      U.S.   941   (2001).     We     have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phillips 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
