                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 06-7039



THOMAS CLAYTON BALDWIN, SR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


DANIEL A. BRAXTON, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cv-00109-jlk)


Submitted:   February 14, 2007         Decided:     February 22, 2007


Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Thomas Clayton Baldwin, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.       Stephen R.
McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Thomas C. Baldwin, 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.       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 Baldwin has not

made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny Baldwin’s motion

for appointment of counsel, 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 -
