UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-6657


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RUHULLAH AS-SADIQ,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:00-cr-00176-F-1; 5:04-cv-00787-F)


Submitted:    November 17, 2009            Decided:   November 20, 2009


Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ruhullah As-Sadiq, Appellant Pro Se.       Thomas B. Murphy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Ruhullah As-Sadiq seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.                       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, 

, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

, 683-84 (4th

Cir.   2001).      We    have    independently        reviewed      the   record    and

conclude   that       As-Sadiq    has   not    made     the    requisite    showing.

Accordingly,     we     deny    As-Sadiq's     motion    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