UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7547 PAUL F. LEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RON

ANGELONE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-02-58-7)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul F. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Paul F. Lee, a Virginia prisoner, 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 of judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition 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 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. See Lee v. Department of Corr. , No. CA-02-58-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 29, 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED