                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 07-7665



FREDDY L. WAMBACH,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


GEORGE HINKLE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondents - Appellees,

          and


CLAUDE M. HILTON, U.S. District Judge,

                Respondent.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00714-TSE)


Submitted:   March 27, 2008                 Decided:   April 2, 2008


Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Freddy L. Wambach seeks to appeal the district court’s

order   dismissing      his    28    U.S.C.    §   2254    (2000)     petition      as

procedurally defaulted.             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   Wambach    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 -
