
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Deonta STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6921
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 28, 2017
    Decided: December 8, 2017
    Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following our prior decision remanding this matter for further proceedings, see United States v. Strom, 688 Fed.Appx. 233 (4th Cir. 2017), the district court granted Justin Deonta Strom’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding, reconsidered two claims previously raised in Strom’s § 2255 motion, and denied those claims on the merits. Strom seeks to appeal this order, which is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Strom 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  