
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian S. GRIMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7488.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 21, 2016.
    Andrea Lantz Harris, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian S. Grimmond seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely 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.

Grimmond concedes that he is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. We have independently reviewed the record and likewise conclude that Grimmond 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.  