Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-16
Citations: 332 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 09-6571
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 868–869

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammed Mahdee ABDULLAH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6571.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 4, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2009.
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Abdullah 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.