
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernesto Francisco COLE, a/k/a Panama, a/k/a Ernest Cole, a/k/a Negrito, a/k/a Negro, a/k/a La Pe, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-7360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 25, 2006.
    Decided: Oct. 11, 2006.
    Jeffrey M. Brandt, Matthew McGavock Robinson, Robinson & Brandt, PSC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, 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    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Ernesto Francisco Cole seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable 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 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 Cole 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.  