UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6203



DELIO ANZUALDA, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GENE JOHNSON, Director; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00769-JRS)


Submitted:   August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 19, 2008


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Delio Anzualda, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Delio Anzualda, Jr., 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

Anzualda 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