
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-7956.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 10, 2014.
    Decided: Aug. 5, 2014.
    
      Benjamin Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Marshall Nothstein, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Lee 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. 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Lee moves to seal the entire case. While we see no compelling reason to seal everything, see In re State-Record Co., 917 F.2d 124, 129 (4th Cir. 1990) (docket entry sheet not likely to contain information prejudicial to the criminal defendant), we will grant the motion insofar as it pertains to his informal brief and the motion to seal. 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.  