
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel BRACAMONTES, a/k/a Miguel Rayo Bracamontes, a/k/a Miguel Bracamontes-Rayo, a/k/a Reinaldo Palomares, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7182
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 20, 2016
    Decided: January 5, 2017
    Miguel Bracamontes, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Brian Scott Meyers, Assistant United States Attorneys, Timothy Severo, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the' United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Bracamontes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 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. § 2258(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, 587 U.S. 322, 336-88, 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 Bracamontes 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  