
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kermit C. BROWN, a/k/a Bear, a/k/a Destruction, a/k/a Brian Mackey, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-6201.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 28, 2004.
    Decided July 8, 2004.
    Kermit C. Brown, Appellant pro se. Fernando Groene, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, 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      Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Kermit C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, in which he sought reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). 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 Brown 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  