
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Anthony HICKMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6789
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 29, 2016
    Decided: October 4, 2016
    Kevin Anthony Hickman, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Anthony Hickman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his subsequent motion for a certificate of ap-pealability. The orders are 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 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 Hickman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hickman’s motions for a certifí-cate 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  