UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Waynely BROWN, Defendant-Appellant, 197 F. App'x 248

PER CURIAM: Waynely Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his Rule 60(

b) motion challenging the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion for clarification. The orders are 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to place the case in abeyance. 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 To the extent Brown may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion in order to raise claims under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) and Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), we deny authorization.