UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 06-7679



TYRONE HILLARD WELLS, JR.,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GARY HORNBAKER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-00135-RDB)


Submitted: January 25, 2007                 Decided:   January 30, 2007


Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrone Hillard Wells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Eason,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Tyrone Hillard Wells, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (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   Wells   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




                                      - 2 -