
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance L. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-6630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 19, 2007.
    Decided: Dec. 21, 2007.
    Lance L. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Rina C. Tucker, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Stephen Wiley Miller, Charles Everett James, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Lance L. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting limited relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing the motion without prejudice. The order 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 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.  