                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 09-6443


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LEROY ALONZO MCELVEEN, a/k/a Deekie,

                  Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:03-cr-00651-TLW-2; 4:07-cv-70056-TLW)


Submitted:    September 10, 2009          Decided:   September 14, 2009


Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Leroy Alonzo McElveen, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Leroy   Alonzo    McElveen         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 McElveen 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
