
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Van Santvoord CAMP, Defendant-Appellant.
    No, 16-7735
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 25, 2017
    Decided: June 8, 2017
    
      Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger .Van Santvoord Camp 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 appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Buck v. Davis, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). 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 Camp has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for 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  