                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 10-7147


EDWARD L. WATSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE JOHNSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00651-AJT-TRJ)


Submitted:   February 10, 2011             Decided:   February 18, 2011


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Edward L. Watson, Appellant Pro Se.    Alice Theresa Armstrong,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Edward L. Watson 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) (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 Watson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the     appeal.       We    deny    Watson’s         motions     for       appointment     of

counsel, for admission and production of documents, and “to note

and recognize,” and 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
