
    Lloyd Neill STRICKLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G. MALDONADO, Jr., Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7582.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 26, 2003.
    Decided March 10, 2003.
    Lloyd Neill Strickland, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Lloyd Neill Strickland, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on the grounds he was not in custody and his petition was untimely. 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 Strickland has not made the requisite showing. See Strickland v. Maldonado, No. CA-02-505-5-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 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.  