
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Oneal TIMMONS, a/k/a Keno, a/k/a Kino, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6742
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 2016
    Decided: December 16, 2016
    Kenneth ONeal Timmons, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Ro-well, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth ONeal Timmons 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 ap-pealability. 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 Timmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Tim-mons’ motions for appointment of counsel and a transcript at government expense. 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  