
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby HAZEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6840
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 28, 2017
    Decided: October 3, 2017
    Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Fletcher Nathaniel Smith, Parker Tobin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 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 Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hazel’s motions to place the appeal in abeyance and for appointment of counsel, grant his motions to file supplemental briefs, 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  