
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Demond ROBINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7234
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 28, 2016
    Decided: January 12, 2017
    Carlos Demond Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Demond Robinson seeks to appeal the district' court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 ap-pealability 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant leave to file a supplemental informal brief and 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 
      
       Robinson had the requisite two prior felony convictions for career offender status. His conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012) was a conviction of a controlled substance offense. See United States v. Robinson, 447 Fed.Appx. 512, 514 (4th Cir. 2011). His South Carolina conviction of strong arm robbery constitutes a conviction of a crime of violence. See United States v. Doctor, 842 F.3d 306, 312 (4th Cir. 2016).
     