                                UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 09-6412


THOMAS RAND,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution,

                  Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.    Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(3:08-cv-00907-HFF)


Submitted:    August 26, 2009                 Decided: September 2, 2009


Before TRAXLER,     Chief   Judge,   and   GREGORY   and   SHEDD,   Circuit
Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Rand, Appellant Pro Se.       Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant   Attorney  General,   Melody   Jane  Brown,  Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas Rand seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting     the     recommendation          of     the     magistrate        judge     and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.                       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.                             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    Rand       has   not       made      the    requisite      showing.

Accordingly, we deny Rand’s motion for appointment of counsel

and for 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
