                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6489



WILLIS BENNETT,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


JOHN L. LAMANNA, Warden; US PAROLE COMMISSION,
THE,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00499-PMD)


Submitted: August 30, 2007                 Decided:   September 7, 2007


Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willis Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Willis Bennett, a prisoner in custody under a sentence

imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(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 Bennett 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 -
