
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric RICHARDSON, a/k/a Father, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-7132
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 16, 2017
    Decided: November 21, 2017
    
      Eric Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Zachary Byrne Stendig, Assistant United States Attorneys, Traci L. Robinson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions.are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions. The portion of the order addressing Richardson’s § 2255 motions is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of apppealability. 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 Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this part of the appeal.

We have also reviewed the record regarding Richardson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm as to the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. 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  