
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elan Christopher LEWIS, a/k/a Jamal Xavier Harris, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-6627.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 24, 2014.
    Decided: July 29, 2014.
    Elan Christopher Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Elan Christopher Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his “Motion for Leave to File ‘Relation Back Amendment’ and/or ‘Supplemental Pleading1 ” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 Lewis 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.  