                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6881



LOUIS MICHAEL MARTINEZ,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of
Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00656)


Submitted:   October 31, 2007          Decided:     November 15, 2007


Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Louis Michael Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Louis Michael Martinez seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying as untimely 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 Martinez 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 -
