
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terence Jerome RICHARDSON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-7800.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
    Decided: March 6, 2006.
    
      Terence Jerome Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Terence Jerome Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), in which he sought reconsideration of the denial of his 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 for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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  