                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 08-6738



CHRISTOPHER N. SHARIKAS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

LORETTA K. KELLY,

                Respondent - Appellee,

          and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00537-CMH-TCB)


Submitted:   September 16, 2008        Decided:   September 22, 2008


Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky; Jennifer T. Stanton, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher N. Sharikas seeks to appeal the district

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

untimely.    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 Sharikas 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
