                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 10-6033


ANTHONY DEWAYNE DAYE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ALVIN KELLER,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00134-GCM)


Submitted:   March 30, 2010                 Decided:   April 6, 2010


Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Dewayne Daye, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Anthony      Dewayne     Daye       seeks    to       appeal   the    district

court’s    order    denying    relief       on   his    28     U.S.C.      § 2254    (2006)

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) (2006).          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)         (2006).         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 Daye

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
