ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion for a certificate of appealability by Petitioner Claudie J. Miller, Jr. (ECF No. 280). After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied.

On October 2, 2017, the Court denied Miller's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 276). On November 14, 2017, Miller filed a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 282). Miller cannot appeal the denial of his section 2255 motion unless a circuit or district judge issues a certificate of appealability, and such a certificate may issue only if the applicant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" requires a demonstration "that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Slack, 529 U.S. at 484 (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1989)).

For the reasons stated in the recommended disposition adopted by the Court and the order adopting those recommendations (ECF Nos. 270 and 276), the Court finds that jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the section 2255 motion should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, Miller's motion for a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 280) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.