
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Arnold SCOTT, a/k/a Craig Levi, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6144.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 24, 2015.
    Decided: Aug. 27, 2015.
    Craig Arnold Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, Office of the United States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Mara Zusman Greenberg, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Arnold Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as an unauthorized, successive motion and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Scott 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.  