
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Everett Cornelius KAYMORE, a/k/a CO, a/k/a Everet Cornelius Kaymore, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7245
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 31, 2017
    Decided: February 3, 2017
    Everett Cornelius Kaymore, Appellant Pro Se. John Palmer Fishwick, Jr., United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Everett' Cornelius Kaymore seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions, and the order denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are 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 ap-pealability 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 Kaymore 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  