UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6981



JOHN PINCKNEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; HENRY MCMASTER,
Attorney General of South Carolina; ANTHONY
PADULA, Warden of the Lee Correctional
Institution,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (9:06-cv-02274-PMD)


Submitted:   November 30, 2007         Decided:     December 20, 2007


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Pinckney, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           John Pinckney seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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