                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6034



DERECK MAURICE HEMBRY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


THEODIS BECK,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02081-FL)


Submitted:   July 25, 2007                 Decided:   August 2, 2007


Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dereck Maurice Hembry, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Dereck     Maurice   Hembry     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.         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 Hembry has not

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

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hembry’s motion

for appointment of counsel. 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 -
