                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-7225



PETE SUMNER,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RON ANGELONE, Director,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-220)


Submitted:   October 9, 2003                 Decided:   October 21, 2003


Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Pete Sumner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Pete Sumner, 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) (2000).    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, 1039-40 (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 Sumner 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
