
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Renato TORRES-EGUINO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7498
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2017
    Decided: April 5, 2017
    Renato Torres-Eguino, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North. Carolina; Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Renato Torres-E guiño seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying a certifícate of appealability. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 164 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 Torres-Eguino has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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  