Jeron Rondell Randall appeals the district court’s order denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Here, the district court construed Randall’s motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, stating in its order that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Randall’s previous § 2255 motion and a motion to reconsider, rejected by the court and affirmed on appeal, raised identical issues as those presented in his current rule 60(b) motion. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Randall has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims, or the court’s procedural rulings, debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.