
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TERAN, a/k/a El Chapin, a/k/a Daniel R. Rodriguez, a/k/a David L. Morales Garcia, a/k/a Hugo Roland Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6120
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 27, 2017
    Decided: July 6, 2017
    Martin Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martin Teran seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Teran 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 
      
      The district court entered judgment denying Teran’s § 2255 motion on June 15, 2015. By motion deposited in the prison's mail system on May 6, 2016, at the earliest, Teran sought relief from that judgment under Fed. R.Civ. P, 60(b). The court denied the Rule 60(b) motion on December 27, 2016. Teran noted his appeal on January 30, 2017. Because Ter-an did not file the Rule 60(b) motion within 28 days of the court’s final order, the motion did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal from a final judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, Teran's notice of appeal applies only to the December 27, 2016, order denying his Rule 60(b) motion and related Fed. R, Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and his challenges to the June 15, 2015, order are not subject to review.
     