Ralph Ramey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). With respect to the denial of relief on his § 2255 motion, the order is 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the rec *419 ord and conclude that Ramey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the denial of relief on Ramey’s § 2255 motion.

We have also reviewed the record with respect to the denial of Ramey’s motion for modification of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Ramey, Nos. CR-92-140; CA-02-866-2; CA-02-883 (S.D.W.Va., May 6, 2003). We deny Ramey’s motion to expedite, and 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 IN PART: AFFIRMED IN PART