                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-6506



MARRIS JERMAINE WILSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


NORA HUNT, Superintendent,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District      Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.       James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00270-JAB)


Submitted: July 20, 2006                       Decided: July 27, 2006


Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marris Jermaine Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Alvin William Keller, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Marris Jermaine Wilson 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 Wilson has not

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

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -
