
    Anthony WHITE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James HARDY, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 07-6171.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 11, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 14, 2007.
    Anthony White, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Anthony White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and subsequent post-judgment motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny White’s motion for 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. 
      
       Although the district court characterized White's post-judgment motions as arising pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), they should have been construed under Rule 59(e). See Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). However, this error by the district court does not affect our disposition of this appeal.
     