
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Michael COGDELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7537
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2016
    Decided: August 16, 2016
    
      Joshua Michael Cogdell, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Michael Cogdell seeks, to appeal the district court’s July 29, 2015 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as time-barred and the court’s August 10, 2015 order construing his motion to amend as a successive § 2255 motion and dismissing it as unauthorized. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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, 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.

With regard to the July 29 order, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cogdell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to that order. As to the August 10 order, we recently granted Cogdell’s motion to file a successive § 2255 motion asserting his claim based on Johnson v. United States, —. U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (declaring residual clause of Armed Career Criminal Act unconstitutionally vague). See In re Cogdell, No. 16-358 (4th Cir. June 21, 2016) (unpublished order). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the appeal related to that order as moot.

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  