
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff— Appellee, v. Raul LABOY, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 03-7261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 28, 2004.
    Decided Sept. 8, 2004.
    Raul LaBoy, Appellant pro se. Jane H. Jolly, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, 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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Raul LaBoy seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his motion for a bill of review that sought to modify his sentence and denying reconsideration. The district court construed LaBoy’s pleading as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it as successive, noting that LaBoy had not obtained authorization from this court to file such a motion. 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(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil 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, 338, 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 LaBoy 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 
      
       By order filed March 5, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
      
     