                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 11-7206


CONRAD BURKE,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE   JOHNSON,     Director     of   Virginia     Department    of
Corrections,

                  Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01267-LMB-JFA)


Submitted:   February 13, 2012               Decided:   February 29, 2012


Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Conrad Burke, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Conrad     Burke   seeks       to    appeal    the    district      court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues     a     certificate        of     appealability.             See    28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).             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) (2006).                  When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating           that   reasonable      jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.                  Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El      v.    Cockrell,      537    U.S.   322,    336-38

(2003).        When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                            Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.           We have independently reviewed the record

and    conclude     that    Burke    has      not    made    the    requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.         We also deny Burke’s motions for appointment of

counsel, for a transcript at the Government’s expense, and for

reconsideration.           We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions         are   adequately       presented     in    the

                                               2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED




                                    3
