                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7342



LARRY ALBERT FORD, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


CIRCUIT COURT OF BUENA VISTA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-02-898)


Submitted:   November 7, 2002          Decided:     November 15, 2002


Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Albert Ford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Larry A. Ford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court in a habeas

corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When,

as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on

procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue

unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”   Rose v. Lee, 252 F.

3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)).   We have reviewed the record and conclude for the

reasons stated by the district court that Ford has not made the

requisite showing.    See Ford v. Circuit Court of Buena Vista,

No. CA-02-898 (W.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2002).      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
