
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thomas HOUSER, a/k/a Robert Joiner, a/k/a Thomas Gross, a/k/a Edward Kingman, a/k/a Tommy King, a/k/a Thomas King, a/k/a Ian Hopkins, a/k/a Tim Hopkins, a/k/a Timothy Hopkins, a/k/a Ian King, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-6238, 04-6239.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2004.
    Decided Sept. 17, 2004.
    Thomas Houser, Appellant pro se. Robert John Krask, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Thomas Houser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Houser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 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  