SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on Petitioner Andre Pease's Notice of Appeal and request for certificate of appealability ("COA"). Dkt. 35. Petitioner is appealing (1) The Court's September 22, 2015 Order denying his motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 31, 2006 denial of his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 28); (2) The Court's October 15, 2015 Order denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 31, 2006 denial of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Petitioner's Motion seeking leave to amend his original motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 31); and Petitioner also appears to appeal (3) The Court's July 25, 2013 Order denying Petitioner's motion for leave to file Rule 60(b) motion for relief (Dkt. 19).
This Court has previously denied Petitioner's motion for COA when it denied Petitioner's 2255 motion on July 31, 2006 (Dkt. 8). This Court denied his request for a COA when it denied Pease's Rule 60(b) motion. Dkt. 11. This Court again denied his request for COA when it denied Pease's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Dkts. 13, 16. The Eleventh Circuit denied his request for COA with respect to the motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 17. This Court again denied Pease's request for COA to appeal this Court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. Dkt. 24. The Eleventh Circuit then denied his request for COA in order to appeal the denial of this Court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion. Dkt. 26.
In order for the Court to grant Petitioner's request for a COA, he must show that reasonable jurists would find debatable both (1) the merits of the underlying claim, and (2) the procedural issues that he seeks to raise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). The Court has considered Pease's request for COA and finds that Pease has failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, it is