
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Henry DAVIS, a/k/a Pops, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-6019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 13, 2007.
    Decided: July 10, 2007.
    Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Henry Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying in part and granting in part his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and denying his application for a certificate of appealability. The district court’s orders on Davis’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (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 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, 684-85 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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. 
      
       We note that to the extent Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s September 30, 2005 order denying his § 2255 motion, his Decemher 5, 2006 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
     