
    Peter BURKE, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David CHESTER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7620.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 7, 2003.
    Peter Burke, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Peter Burke, Sr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). Burke has also filed a motion for appointment of appellate counsel.

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). 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, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595,146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Burke has not made the requisite showing. See Burke v. Chester, No. CA-02-657-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Burke’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel. 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.  