                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7630



COREY CHRISTOPHER MERCER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,


          versus


WILLIAM SONDERVAN, Commissioner;       ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-2266-AW)


Submitted: January 15, 2004                 Decided:   January 28, 2004


Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Corey Christopher Mercer, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Corey Christopher Mercer appeals from the dismissal of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.       An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

          We have reviewed the record and determine that Mercer has

not made the requisite showing.    See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 336.

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 in the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                               - 2 -
