
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Jermaine LOCKEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7479
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 31, 2017
    Decided: August 2, 2017
    Lynne Louise Reid, L.L. REID LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas B. Murphy, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry Jermaine Lockee 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 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 Lockee 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 
      
       We held this appeal in abeyance pending our decision in United States v. Royster, No. 15-4757. Although Royster did not resolve the issues presented in this appeal, we conclude that Lockee's claim for relief is squarely foreclosed by other recent, binding authority. See Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 895, 897, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017); United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 932-33 (4th Cir. 2015).
     