                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 06-8070



MONIQUE D. REDD,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:06-cv-00514-MHL)


Submitted: April 26, 2007                       Decided: May 2, 2007


Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Monique D. Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Monique D. Redd seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.*

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000).           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    Redd    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



      *
      This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

                                        - 2 -
