
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DeJuan Anderko WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-6880.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
    Decided: Aug. 30, 2007.
    DeJuan Anderko Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

DeJuan Anderko Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The orders are 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 Watkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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.  