                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7848



JAMAR SHANTE PAXTON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


D. BRAXTON, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-04-894)


Submitted: April 20, 2006                   Decided: April 25, 2006


Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jamar Shante Paxton, Appellant Pro Se.      Margaret Winslow Reed,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Jamar Shante Paxton seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.               See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose   v.   Lee,   252   F.3d       676,    683    (4th   Cir.   2001).    We   have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Paxton 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 -
