
    Joseph Edward KERN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6490.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 29, 2003.
    Decided June 5, 2003.
    Joseph Edward Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph Edward Kern, a state prisoner, 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 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 a district court dismisses 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kern has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cock rell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  