UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David M. SCATES, Defendant-Appellant, 193 F. App'x 236

PER CURIAM: David M. Scates seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his “Motion to Correct Criminal Judgment and Motion to Correct Error Arising From Oversight” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabihty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealabihty 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 Scates has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty 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