
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Lee BUTTS, a/k/a Stephanie Zavala, a/k/a Tater, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7534
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 13, 2018
    Decided: March 16, 2018
    Stephanie Lee Butts, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Cam-illetti, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lara- Kay Omps-Botteicher, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, Traci Michelle Cook, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarks-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee,
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephanie Lee Butts seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of' the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 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 Butts 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  