
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Scott Allen SMITH, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7666.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 28, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 17, 2004.
    Scott Allen Smith, Appellant pro se. Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Scott Allen Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 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, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Smith 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 
      
       Smith raises issues regarding error by appointed counsel in the § 2255 proceeding, bias by the magistrate judge and error by the district court. However, Smith's failure to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) precludes us from issuing a certificate of appealability.
     