
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eduard BANGIYEV, a/k/a Eddie, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7346
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 22, 2018
    Decided: February 27, 2018
    Richard Klugh, LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD C. KLUGH, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Gordon D. Kromberg, Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Allison Ickovic, Jonathan David Scharf, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eduard Bangiyev 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 Bangiyev 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  