UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 10-7449


WILLIAM K. HALVORSEN,

                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 Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00419-REP)


Submitted:   January 13, 2011             Decided:   January 20, 2011


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,
for Appellant. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William       K.   Halvorsen       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).                   When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating        that   reasonable         jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 

,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,        

,    336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                            

.            We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Halvorsen 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




                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3