
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Alonzo WRIGHT, a/k/a Jimmy Alfonzo Wright, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-6022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 28, 2015.
    Decided: May 4, 2015.
    Jimmy Alonzo Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Alonzo Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wright 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. 
      
       The court correctly construed the nunc pro tunc motion, the motion to alter or amend, and the motion for summary judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255 motions.
     