
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donte Bernard BAKER, a/k/a Tay, a/k/a Donnie, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6689
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2017
    Decided: August 1, 2017
    Donte Bernard Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Joshua Thomas Fer-rentino, Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland; Anthony Joseph Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Donte Bernard Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C, § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying reconsideration. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Baker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED  