UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney H. WILLIAMS, a/k/a Simon Andrew Conrad, a/k/a Siothan Andrew Connor, a/k/a Rod Williams, a/k/a Kenneth Gary Williams, Defendant-Appellant, 218 F. App'x 223

PER CURIAM: Rodney H. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge with respect to one claim and denying relief on his remaining claims filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Williams’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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.