
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tradon Marquez DRAYTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6640
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 28, 2017
    Decided: October 3, 2017
    Tradon Marquez Drayton, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giomo, Ashley Brooke Neese, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tradon Marquez Drayton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders construing Drayton’s postjudgment motion to dismiss one count of the charging indictment as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis, and denying Drayton’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. 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 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 Drayton 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  