
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony WALCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6735
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 18, 2016
    Decided: October 21, 2016
    Patrick Michael Megaro, Appeals Law Group, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant. Yolanda Dee McCray Jones, Office of the United States Attorney, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Walcott 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. § 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 Walcott 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  