
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred SHORES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 26, 2004.
    Decided: June 29, 2004.
    Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant pro se.
    Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. Shores cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). 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 habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shores 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  