                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-7150



JAFET GALVAN GOMEZ,


                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00421)


Submitted:   December 20, 2007          Decided:    December 27, 2007


Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jafet Galvan Gomez, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jafet Galvan Gomez 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 Gomez has not

made the requisite showing.         Accordingly, we deny Gomez’s motions

to    proceed     in   forma   pauperis       and   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 -
