
    Jamel (I’Man) KABIR, a/k/a Jamel Muhammed Kabir, a/k/a Ernest Williams, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 04-7255.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2004.
    Decided Oct. 22, 2004.
    Jamel (I’Man) Kabir, Appellant pro se. John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Jamel Kabir, also known as Ernest Williams, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive and untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings 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 Kabir has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Kabir’s informal brief and notice of appeal could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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  