                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7805



ST. AUBYN SEBASTIAN GAYLE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-00681)


Submitted:   February 26, 2007             Decided:    March 7, 2007


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle, Appellant Pro Se.   Virginia Bidwell
Theisen, John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            St. Aubyn Sebastian Gayle 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 Gayle has not

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

appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny Gayle’s motions for

appointment of counsel and to stay the proceedings.                 We deny

Gayle’s motion for 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 -
