
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frank Demetric DICKERSON, Jr., a/k/a Frank Dixon, a/k/a Frankie D., Defandant—Appellant.
    No. 07-6419.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.
    Decided: Nov. 20, 2007.
    Frank Demetric Dickerson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Christine Manuelian, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Frank Demetric Dickerson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable 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 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dickerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Dickerson’s “Motion to Correct Clerical Error.” 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.  