
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance Richardson PAGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7452
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 15, 2018
    Decided: February 20, 2018
    Lance Richardson Pagan, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THAGKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lance Richardson Pagan seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. We conclude that Pagan’s motion was in substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The district court’s order is not appeal-able 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. § 2263(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 Pagan has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to deny § 2255 relief on the merits because Pagan’s motion challenged the validity of his conviction and should have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Pagan’s motion for a bill of particulars and 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  