
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Gartrell BOWLING, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-6338.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 19, 2014.
    Decided: June 23, 2014.
    Robert Gartrell Bowling, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Gartrell Bowling seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying in part and granting in part his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as well as its order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion, and he has filed a motion for a certificate of ap-pealability. The orders Bowling seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Bowling has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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. 
      
       The district court found that Bowling was incorrectly sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3) (2012). Bowling has since been resentenced on his § 1028(a)(3) convictions.
     