                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7497



ANTONIO HODGES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-05-734)


Submitted: February 23, 2006                   Decided: March 2, 2006


Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Antonio Hodges seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.            The

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

certificate of appealability.       28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are 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 Hodges 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 -
