
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emjadia PORTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7206.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 28, 2004.
    Decided: June 29, 2004.
    Emjadia Porter, Appellant pro se.
    Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, 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      Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.CivP. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Porter’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 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 Porter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Porter’s motion for 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  