UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                  No. 08-6695


JEFFREY DEAN HANKS,

                   Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

ED WRIGHT,

                   Respondent – Appellee,

             and

NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL; JEFF FRAZIER, Warden,

                   Respondents.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00020-HEH)


Submitted:    February 17, 2009                  Decided:   March 12, 2009


Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jeffrey Dean Hanks, Appellant Pro Se.           Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General,              Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jeffrey      Dean    Hanks       seeks      to     appeal      the   district

court’s    order    denying     relief      on   his     28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2006)

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) (2006).            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)         (2006).        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 Hanks

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