Leo Hinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his action seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. Regarding Hinson’s motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2), we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court. United States v. Hinson, No. 7:02-cr-00120-F (E.D.N.C. entered Nov. 3, 2005 & filed Nov. 9, 2005; Mar. 7, 2006).

Regarding Hinson’s relief sought under § 2255, the orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Hinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, *240 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.