ORDER

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Wallace Reed's Motion for Certificate of Appealability. (Civ. Doc. 22). On December 13, 2007, the Court denied Petitioner's amended § 2255 motion. (Civ. Doc. 9). The Court reviewed and denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and request to file a second amended § 2255 motion on December 31, 2007, finding that Petitioner did not raise any new claims in his proposed second amended § 2255 motion that warranted relief. (Civ. Doc. 12). More than four years later, Petitioner filed a motion for relief from judgment and to reopen § 2255 proceedings, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which the Court denied on May 31, 2012. (Civ. Doc. 20). In the instant motion, Petitioner seeks a Certificate of Appealability ("COA") so that he may appeal the Court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Because Petitioner is not entitled to a COA, his motion is denied.

A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a COA. Id. "A [COA] may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner "must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that "the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,'" Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983)). Petitioner has not made the requisite showing in these circumstances.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Civ. Doc. 22) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.