UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6985

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIE L. DUMAS, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (5:04-cr-00058-1; 5:07-cv-00795)

Submitted: October 28, 2009 Decided: December 11, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie L. Dumas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Willie L. Dumas, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

(West

Supp. 2009) motion, construing Dumas’ motion to amend as a

motion for reduction of sentence under

(c)(2)

(2006), and denying relief under § 3582(c)(2). The order

denying § 2255 relief is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2006). 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,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000);

Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dumas has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the order

denying § 2255 relief. Further, we have reviewed the district

court’s order denying Dumas’ sentence reduction under

(c)(2) and affirm, finding no reversible error. United

2 States v. Dumas, No. 5:04-cr-00058-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 15, 2009).

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

3