
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6554
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 25, 2017
    Decided: October 2, 2017
    
      Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Chestnut seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Turning first to Chestnut’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentenpe, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Chestnut, Nos. 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02013-RBH, 2017 WL 2198888 (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017).

As to the district court’s denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions, this portion of the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Chestnut has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions.

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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART  