
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Todd Bradley GRAY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2006.
    Decided: June 19, 2006.
    Todd Bradley Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Todd Bradley Gray seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion for reconsideration and motion to amend. An order denying a § 2255 motion is 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 that Gray has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Gray’s motion to be released on his own recognizance. 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  