
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee VANCE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-7153.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 21, 2014.
    Decided: Oct. 24, 2014.
    
      Ricky Lee Vance, Appellant pro se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Lee Vance seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion for a writ of error coram nobis as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis. 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 Vance has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Vance’s motion for leave to amend his appeal, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for the appointment of counsel, 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.  