
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lionel STAINE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-7771.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 13, 2010.
    Decided: Jan. 27, 2010.
    
      Lionel Staine, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Staine seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The court denied Staine’s motion on the merits and because it was untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 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 Staine has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Staine’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.  