                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 04-7073



JOHN JEFFRIES LISANICK,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON, Director of VDOC,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-714-3)


Submitted:   November 15, 2004         Decided:     November 30, 2004


Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Jeffries Lisanick, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              John Jeffries Lisanick appeals from the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.                 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 jurists of reason

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 reviewed the record and conclude that Lisanick

has   not     made   the    requisite    showing.         We   therefore   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 -
