
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Craig Lamont SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6344
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: August 17, 2017
    Decided: August 21, 2017
    Craig Lamont Scott, Appellant Pro Se.
    David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; James G. Warwick, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    
      Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Craig Lamont Scott 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. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of á 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Scott’s motion to amend, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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  