UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-6326


KEITH EMMANDER HARRIS,

                  Petitioner – Appellant,

             v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,

                  Respondent – Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:08-cv-00397-LO-TRJ)


Submitted:    November 2, 2009              Decided:   November 16, 2009


Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Keith Emmander Harris, Appellant Pro Se.      Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Keith    Emmander       Harris       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 Harris

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