
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Danny Lee FLECK, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Danny Lee Fleck, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-6254, 11-6735.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 11, 2011.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2011.
    Danny Lee Fleck, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danny Lee Fleck seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (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 Fleck has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  