                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 09-7265


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MOHAMED HASSAN SOLIMAN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00169-RBS-FBS-1; 2:08-cv-00278-RBS)


Submitted:   May 13, 2010                 Decided:   August 24, 2010


Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mohamed Hassan Soliman, Appellant Pro Se.   Robert John Krask,
Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  Norfolk,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Mohamed Hassan Soliman 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).               When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard      by    demonstrating         that   reasonable        jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.                 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);   see       Miller-El     v.   Cockrell,        537   U.S.    322,    336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                             Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.            We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Soliman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to    proceed    in    forma    pauperis,         and    dismiss     the    appeal.      In

addition, we deny Soliman’s motion for appointment of counsel.

We    dispense   with       oral   argument        because     the   facts    and     legal



                                              2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                           DISMISSED




                                3
