                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 03-6510



RODNEY LEE GILL,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-113-7)


Submitted:   June 12, 2003                 Decided:   June 18, 2003


Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rodney Lee Gill, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Rodney Lee Gill seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is appealable only if 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.

§   253(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 Mitchell-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 684 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).                 We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gill 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 material before the court and argument would not

aid in the decisional process.




                                                                       DISMISSED




                                       2
