UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Junior POWELL, a/k/a Dick, Defendant-Appellant, 175 F. App'x 637

PER CURIAM: Floyd Junior Powell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless this court 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Powell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Powell’s motions for appointment of counsel, for release after judgment, to vacate his convictions and dismiss indictment, and for oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED