UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin A. RIDEOUT, a/k/a JD, Defendant-Appellant, 375 F. App'x 344

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin A. Rideout seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and denying his motion to reconsider. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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) (2006). 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 dispos-itive 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 Rideout has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.