
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Leopoldo ZAVALA, a/k/a Leo, a/k/a Leopoldo Zavala, a/k/a Francisco Leopoldo Zavala-Umana, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7255
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: November 21, 2017
    
      Francisco Leopoldo Zavala, Appellant Pro Se. David Alexander Peters, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Leopoldo Zavala 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 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Zavala 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  