
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-6398.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 14, 2005.
    Decided: July 26, 2005.
    Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant pro se. David T. Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Elan Christopher Lewis, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders: (1) denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion; and (2) denying his motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 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 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 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 Lewis 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  