                               UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 08-6372



AUBREY BRIAN EDWARDS,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:07-cv-00330-RGD-TEM-1)


Submitted:     July 31, 2008                 Decided:   August 8, 2008


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Aubrey Brian Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Aubrey Brian Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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 Edwards has not

made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.              We also deny Edwards’

motions for bail or release pending appeal and for transcripts at

government expense.         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 -
