
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy CHRISTMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-7920.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2007.
    Decided: April 5, 2007.
    Anne Elizabeth Shaffer, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Monica Kaminski Schwartz, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Randy Christmas seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order dismissing Christmas’s § 2255 motion 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 Christmas has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny 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 Christmas’s informal brief filed in this court can be construed as a request for this court’s permission to file a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2000), we deny it.
     