
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MARTINEZ-BARRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-6844.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 16, 2014.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2014.
    Alejandro Martinez-Barrera, Appellant Pro Se. Sebastian Kielmanovich, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Martinez-Barrera seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C.. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (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 Martinez-Barrera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.  