
    Bernie J.E. DINGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charlie Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
    Nos. 04-7679, 05-6337.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 14, 2005.
    Decided: Aug. 2, 2005.
    
      Bernie J.E. Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Bernie J.E. Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) (Appeal No. 04-7679), and his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion (Appeal No. 05-6337). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dingle has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability, deny Dingle’s motion to compel, and dismiss the appeals. 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  