UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 06-7523



SILVANO GUERRA DIAZ,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


REGINALD WEISNER,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00081)


Submitted:   August 17, 2007             Decided:   September 20, 2007


Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Silvano Guerra Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Silvano Guerra Diaz seeks to appeal the district court’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.        See 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.         See    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 Diaz

has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Diaz’s motion for appointment of

counsel 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 -