UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael SCATES, Defendant-Appellant, 251 F. App'x 255

PER CURIAM: David Michael Scates seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing Scates’ second “Motion to Correct Error Arising from Oversight and/or Omission” and “Supplemental Motion to Correct Error Arising from Oversight and/or Omission” as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and dismissing them on that basis, and a subsequent order denying his “Motion to Implement Court Order.” 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 that Scates has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.