
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace M. BRYANT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7067
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 15, 2016
    Decided: December 20, 2016
    ' Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Bryant’s motion for a sentence reduction. 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  