
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jotham Rafael SIMMONS, a/k/a Johnathan Rashad Simmons, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7096
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 21, 2017
    Decided: November 28, 2017
    
      Jotham Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jotham Simmons 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 Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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  