UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7488

GREGORY D. FLEMING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 03-7698

GREGORY D. FLEMING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-925-3; CA-02-774)

Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 17, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory D. Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Gregory D. Fleming, a

state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders

denying relief on his petitions filed under

(2000).* The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”

(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record in each case and conclude that Fleming has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis in No. 03-7698, deny a certificate of appealability, 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

* The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction pursuant to

(c) (2000).

- 3 -