                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 03-7930



PERRY ALLEN BURKS, SR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of
Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-727-7)


Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   April 1, 2004


Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Perry Allen Burks, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Perry Allen Burks, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his habeas corpus petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).          An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a habeas corpus 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   Burks   has   not   made    the   requisite   showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.    We deny Burks’ motion for production of documents.          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 -
