
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Raymond LOOKER, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 02-7661, 02-7662, 02-7663, 02-7664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 21, 2003.
    Floyd Raymond Looker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Floyd Raymond Looker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court 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). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, - U.S. -, -, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Looker has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability in each appeal and dismiss the appeals. 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.  