                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-7390



ROGER DEAN POINDEXTER,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-04-1555-TSE)


Submitted:   January 31, 2007          Decided:     February 27, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roger Dean Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se.       Paul Christopher
Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Roger       Dean    Poindexter     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 Poindexter has

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

of appealability, deny Poindexter’s motion to expedite his appeal,

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 -
