
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne D. THOMPSON, a/k/a Buck Naked, a/k/a Wayne Donnell Thompson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6862
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 17, 2016
    Decided: November 22, 2016
    
      Wayne D. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys; Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and ■ MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

■ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wayne D. Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive 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 Thompson’s informal appellate brief and conclude that Thompson 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  