                           UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                           No. 07-7639



RONALD ANTHONY MANNO,

               Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; ROBERT KOPPEL,
Warden,

               Respondents - Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-cv-
00526-AMD)


Submitted: May 22, 2008                        Decided:   May 27, 2008


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ronald Anthony Manno, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen C. Brockmeyer,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Ronald Anthony Manno seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.        See 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.         See   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 Manno

has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, and deny

Manno’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment

of his 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 -
