
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark James KONSAVICH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-7677.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 16, 2009.
    Decided: Jan. 19, 2010.
    Mark James Konsavich, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark James Konsavich seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate 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 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 Konsa-vich’s arguments on appeal and conclude Konsavich 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.  