                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7580



MICHAEL CHARLES WEASE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON, Director,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-03-560-2)


Submitted:   July 7, 2004                 Decided:   October 28, 2004


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Michael Charles Wease, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as successive.*            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 Wease has not made the

requisite     showing.      Accordingly,     we    deny    a    certificate   of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

     To the extent that Wease’s notice of appeal and appellate

brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,



     *
      By order filed April 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.

                                    - 2 -
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003).       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




                                     - 3 -
