                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7968



GHAZI GHABAYEN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


TOM CARROLL,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-05-70-5-FL)


Submitted: June 22, 2006                       Decided: June 28, 2006



Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ghazi Ghabayen, Appellant Pro Se.     Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Ghazi Ghabayen 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.           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,

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 Ghabayen has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of    appealability,     deny   Ghabayen’s     motion   for   appointment      of

counsel, 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 -
