                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 04-6280



WILLARD F. MEARS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JACK LEE, Warden; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Classification Service,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-450-7)


Submitted:   June 24, 2004                   Decided:   July 1, 2004


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willard F. Mears, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          William F. Mears seeks to appeal the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.    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).    A certificate of appealability will

not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits

absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).      A habeas appellant meets 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, 326 (2003);

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

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).   Upon review of the materials before the

court, we conclude that Mears has not made the required 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 -
