
    UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Emmanuel STEADMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 036899.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2004.
    Decided March 11, 2004.
    Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant pro se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Steadman failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we granted Steadman’s rehearing petition and have considered the issues raised in his informal brief. We now dismiss the case on the ground that Steadman has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

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 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 both 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 Steadman 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  