
    Widney Trevor DINNALL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-6341.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 30, 2004.
    Decided Aug. 17, 2004.
    Widney Trevor Dinnall, Appellant pro se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Widney Trevor Dinnall seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. An appeal may not be taken from either order unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 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) (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 Din-nall has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Dinnall’s motion to remand. 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  