Eric T. Pfeifle seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing him to show cause why his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition should not be dismissed as untimely and the final order dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely and barred by his procedural default. * 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 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 Pfeifle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We also deny Pfeifle’s motion to appoint counsel. We court’s *345 September 12, whether his notice of 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). 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.