
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Julio MORBAN-LOPEZ, a/k/a Jose Julio Morvan, a/k/a Sid Dft 3:99CR109-3, a/k/a Jose Julio Morban, a/k/a Carlos Enrique Cepan, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6954
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: November 21, 2017
    
      Jose Julio Morban-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Thomas A. O’Malley, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Jose Julio Morban-Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Morban-Lopez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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  