Anthony Wayne Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition he labeled as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed *324 the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Cameron’s claims should be asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Cameron, however, has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as to the district court’s dismissal. See Cameron v. Stans-berry, No. CA-04-628 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2004). Accordingly, we deny Cameron a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000).

To the extent that Cameron’s notice of appeal and appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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