                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 03-7181



WILLIE ANDRE BROWN,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


EDDIE LEE PEARSON, Warden, Sussex II State
Prison,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-606)


Submitted:    December 10, 2003           Decided:     December 29, 2003


Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willie Andre Brown, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Willie Andre Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

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, 337 (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    Brown   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 materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.




                                                                            DISMISSED




                                        2
