
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Anthony WILLIAMS, a/k/a Michael Nemhardt, a/k/a Alex Cruz, a/k/a Smiley, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-7177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 24, 2006.
    Decided: March 27, 2006.
    
      Mark Anthony Williams, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Assistant United States Attorney, Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and KING, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mark Anthony Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), seeking to reopen his motion also filed under Rule 60(b) to reconsider his sentence of life imprisonment based on the decisions in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The order, which derives from the denial of a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see 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)(1) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 684 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams 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 
      
       To the extent Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s April 19, 2005 order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, his notice of appeal is untimely.
     