UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6342



AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1,

                Respondent - Appellee,

          and


SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director
SCDC,

                Respondents.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (4:07-cv-00194-JFA)


Submitted:   May 22, 2008                    Decided:   May 30, 2008


Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY
GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

            Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely

filed.     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 Garland 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




                                     - 3 -