
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. McKinley David LITTLEJOHN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-6746.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 15, 2004.
    Decided July 23, 2004.
    
      McKinley David Littlejohn, Appellant pro se.
    Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

McKinley David Littlejohn seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion noting an alleged defect in the indictment as an unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 Little-john 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  