                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6593



CHESTER WILSON JONES, JR.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00762-BO)


Submitted:   November 16, 2007          Decided:    November 30, 2007


Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chester Wilson Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Chester Wilson Jones, Jr., 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.         See   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.       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 Jones

has not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny Jones’

motion for 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 -
