
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennever LIVINGSTON, a/k/a Fatta, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-7850.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 16, 2015.
    Decided: April 20, 2015.
    Dennever Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    
      Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dennever Livingston appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying his motion to amend his § 2255 motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 Livingston 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.  