
    Philip Martin COOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-7682.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.
    Decided March 3, 2005.
    Philip Martin Cooper, Appellant pro se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, 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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Philip Martin Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from either order unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 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 Cooper 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.  