
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Chavius Marquette BARBER, a/k/a The Rock, a/k/a Cha-Roc, a/k/a KD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-6546.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2013.
    Decided: June 26, 2013.
    Chavius Marquette Barber, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Dana Owen Washington, Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chavius Marquette Barber appeals the district court’s order construing his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Barber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.  