
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cheukma Kenyata SANDERS, a/k/a Kuma, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6048.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 22, 2010.
    Decided: April 28, 2010.
    Cheukma Kenyata Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cheukma Kenyata Sanders 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 ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 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 that Sanders 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. 
      
       We decline to consider Sanders' claim, raised for the first time in this court, that the district court applied the Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and counsel failed to object. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993).
     