
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William CRAWFORD, a/k/a Pop, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7481.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 28, 2004.
    Decided March 22, 2004.
    William Crawford, Appellant pro se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

William Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Crawford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the matei’ials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED  