Steven Z. Rast seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 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); United States v. Hadden, 475 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007). 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 Rast has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Rast’s motions for appointment of counsel, for resentencing, for access to legal materials and transcripts, and to vacate conviction and remand to the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented *950 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.