¶1 Raymond Cherisson seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “Omnibus Motion to Modify Term of Imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying relief. He further seeks to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of that denial of relief. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap *126 pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 Cherisson 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.
¶2 DISMISSED.