                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7385



MAYO EUGENE CONRAD,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THEODIS BECK, Secretary of the Department of
Correction,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-1017-1)


Submitted:   November 7, 2002          Decided:     November 15, 2002


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mayo Eugene Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Mayo Eugene Conrad 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 to this court 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 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.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

     We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Conrad has not satisfied either

standard.     See Conrad v. Beck, No. CA-01-1017-1 (M.D.N.C. filed

Aug. 30, 2002 & entered Sept. 3, 2002).     Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.    We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are




                                 2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.




                                                         DISMISSED




                                3
