
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-6275.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 26, 2008.
    Decided: July 2, 2008.
    Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Jay Tenpas, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “Motion for Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Elliott’s motion to expedite as moot, 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.  