
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brad Christopher HULL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7734.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 22, 2016.
    Decided: May 11, 2016.
    Brad Christopher Hull, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brad Christopher Hull seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion and its order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Hull has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hull’s motion for 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.  