UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 08-6057



JOHNNIE LEE JUSTICE,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:07-cv-01090-LMB-TRJ)


Submitted:     April 24, 2008                 Decided:   April 29, 2008


Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Johnnie Lee Justice, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Johnnie Lee Justice seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),

as a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and dismissing it on that basis.                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 Justice

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 -