
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco BARAHONA, a/k/a Poncho, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Barahona, a/k/a Poncho, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7071, No. 17-7099
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 19, 2017
    Decided: January 3, 2018
    Francisco Barahona, Appellant Pro Se. Arun G. Rao, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee,
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM;

Francisco Barahona seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying him a certificate of appealability. The orders are 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 Barahona has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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  