
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaun A. BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-7185.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 21, 2003.
    Shaun A. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Paul Thomas Camilletti, Office of the United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Shaun A. Brooks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Brooks cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Brooks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabiüty 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.  