                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 09-7623


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RAYMOND ANTHONY LONDON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00402-FDW-CH-2; 3:09-cv-00287)


Submitted:   February 25, 2010              Decided:   March 4, 2010


Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond Anthony London, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Raymond Anthony London seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2009)    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, 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 London 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



                                              2
