                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-6523



CARL D. NEWTON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-419-2)


Submitted:   July 8, 2003                 Decided:   October 7, 2003


Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Carl D. Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George
Maralan Kelly, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Carl D. Newton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

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 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,

  , 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 Newton 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
