                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-7537



TAURICE M. CRISP,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


THEODIS BECK,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:07-hc-02006-FL)


Submitted:   February 21, 2008            Decided:   February 27, 2008


Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Taurice M. Crisp, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Taurice M. Crisp 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.         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 Crisp

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

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                       We deny

Crisp’s motion for transfer and 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 -
