                               UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 02-7697



ELMER BARLEY,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus


DEBORAH E. HOGES, Clerk of Court, Campbell
County, Virginia,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-723-7)


Submitted:    December 19, 2002              Decided:   January 7, 2003


Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elmer Barley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Elmer Barley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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 for claims addressed by a district

court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of

a constitutional right.”   28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).     As to

claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds,

a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’”   Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).       We have reviewed the record and

conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Barley

has not satisfied either standard. See Barley v. Hoges, No. CA-02-

723-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately




                                 2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.




                                                        DISMISSED




                                3
