                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7893



DANIEL E. FELIX,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-46)


Submitted:   April 26, 2004                 Decided:   June 7, 2004


Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel E. Felix, Appellant Pro Se.      Philip Carlton Hollowell,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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      E.     Felix,   a    state    prisoner,    moves   for    a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order

denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).    The order is not appealable 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

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 independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Felix has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we   deny     Felix’s     motion    for   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 -
