
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey Randall BREEDEN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-6348.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 27, 2006.
    Decided: May 1, 2006.
    Jeffrey Randall Breeden, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Hechtkopf, Samuel Robert Lyons, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Jeffrey Randall Breeden seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and his 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Breeden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Breeden’s motion to supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See also United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir.2005) (holding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review). 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  