UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 06-6720



CHARLES JERALL SMITH,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:05-cv-00196-MHL)


Submitted:   October 4, 2006                 Decided:   January 25, 2007


Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Jerall Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lee Parrish, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Charles Jerall Smith seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s order* denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.    The order is not appealable 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

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.”    28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).        A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.          Miller-El v. Cockrell,

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not

made the requisite showing.     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




     *
      In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), the parties
consented to have a magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in the
case.

                                     - 2 -