
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Okang Kareen ROCHELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6743
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 9, 2017
    Decided: March 21, 2017
    Okang Kareen Rochelle, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ra-maswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Okang Kareen Rochelle seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are 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 Rochelle 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  