                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7735



GUY JACKSON PRICE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-883-7)


Submitted:   February 25, 2004            Decided:   March 29, 2004


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Guy Jackson Price seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a deficient

final judgment order.     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 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 Price 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 -
