                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 02-7718



CHARLES RAY EDGELL,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


WILLIAM   S.  HAINES,    Warden,   Huttonsville
Correctional Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-106-1)


Submitted:   April 7, 2003                 Decided:   April 14, 2003


Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Ray Edgell, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Charles Ray Edgell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) application, which was properly construed as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.     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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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   both   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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).       We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Edgell 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
