DANA L. CHRISTENSEN, Chief District Judge.
On January 6, 2020, the Court dismissed Defendant Fourstar's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 324) because the revocation judgment he challenges in the § 2255 motion is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on direct review. See Order (Doc. 325); see also United States v. Fourstar, No. 19-30200 (9th Cir. filed Aug. 29, 2019).
Fourstar now moves to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Any non-frivolous allegations, see Rule 59 Mot. (Doc. 326) at 1-2, may be raised on direct review, or they are properly deferred to collateral review after direct review concludes, see, e.g., United States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299-300 (9th Cir. 1997), or they are not properly brought in a § 2255 motion. Fourstar identifies no sound reason to alter or amend the dismissal of his § 2255 motion in favor of the pending direct appeal.
A certificate of appealability is not warranted. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Fourstar's Rule 59 motion (Doc. 326) is DENIED.
2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall immediately process the appeal if Fourstar files a Notice of Appeal.