
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John F. Jef CURRAN, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7825
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 30, 2017
    Decided: June 8, 2017
    
      John F. Jef Curran, III, Appellant Pro Se. Leo Joseph Wise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John F. Jef Curran, III, 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Buck v. Davis, — U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). 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). Whep 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 Curran has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Curran’s motions to file a supplemental brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the other pending motions, 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  