
    Gary LEGETTE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald ANGELONE, Director of DOC, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-7254.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2004.
    Decided Nov. 30, 2004.
    David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Gary Legette 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 in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Legette has not satisfied the appropriate standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 
      
       To the extent the district court failed to consider Legette’s assertions of cause and prejudice and fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse the application of the procedural bar to his habeas claims, we find such assertions insufficient to overcome the applicable procedural bar.
     