                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-7608



ZEIAD K. BECHARA,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00516-HEH)


Submitted:   May 13, 2008                    Decided:   June 3, 2008


Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Zeiad K. Bechara, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Zeiad K. Bechara seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                        The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See id. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.”                       Id. § 2253(c)(2).         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, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the

record     and    conclude      that    Bechara   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 -
