
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Andaryl WILLS, a/k/a Michael Wills, a/k/a Ed Short, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-7009.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 28, 2007.
    Decided: April 20, 2007.
    
      Christopher Andaryl Wills, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Kevin Victor Di-Gregory, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Christopher Andaryl Wills seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 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 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 Wills has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wills’ motions for appointment of counsel, deny his 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.  