
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Allen SMITH, Jr., a/k/a Smitty, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6480
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 29, 2016
    Decided: October 4, 2016
    Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing Smith’s self-styled “Motion to Compel the Release of Exculpatory Documents” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying the motion as successive and without this court’s authorization. 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion to appoint counsel, 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 
      
       Moreover, we reject Smith’s invitation to construe his motion to compel as a petition for mandamus.
     