                                 UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                 No. 08-6664



JOSEPH EVANS, SR.,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.


DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-000326-REP)


Submitted:     August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 21, 2008


Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Evans, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.       Craig Winston Stallard,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Joseph Evans, Sr., 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

Evans 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
