                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 07-6874



CHRISTOPHER SCOTT FRANCIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


RODERICK SOWERS, Warden, RCI-H;       ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(1:05-cv-01709)


Submitted:   January 28, 2008                  Decided:   May 5, 2008


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Scott Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley,
Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Christopher Scott Francis appeals 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 Francis has not

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

appealability 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 -
