
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Raymond SCHIMMEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-7384.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
    Decided: Dec. 23, 2014.
    James Raymond Schimmel, Appellant Pro Se. Catherine Sun Ahn, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexander T.H. Nguyen, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Ryan K. Dickey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Raymond Schimmel 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 certifícate 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 Schimmel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Schimmel’s motion 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.  