
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie Lee LUCAS, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7526
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 28, 2017
    Decided: May 3, 2017
    Johnnie Lee Lucas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Lee Lucas, 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 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, 164 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 Lucas has not made the requisite showing. His challenge to the career offender enhancement applied to his sentence, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(2), is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and his § 2255 motion is precluded by the waiver provision in his plea agreement. Accordingly, we deny Lucas’s motion for 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  