
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Erscell Julius WORLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7016
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 18, 2018
    Decided: January 22, 2018
    Erscell Julius Worlds, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Erscell Julius Worlds 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(e)(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. § 2258(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 Worlds has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Worlds’ motion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending decision in United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2017). 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  