
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy CHAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-7507.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
    Decided: Feb. 24, 2010.
    Sammy Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sammy Chavis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Ange-lone, 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)(2) (2006). 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 Chavis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chavis’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

To the extent that Chavis’s notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Win- estock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). 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.  