Juan Lopez seeks to appeal the district courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lopez 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
. On appeal, Lopez contends that the district court erred by declining to consider documents that he filed in support of his § 2255 motion. The district court declined to consider those documents because Lopez filed them after the reply deadline had passed. The district court added, however, that even if it were to consider the documents, they would not affect its analysis of Lopezs § 2255 claims. Having reviewed the documents, we are satisfied that they do not entitle Lopez to a certificate of appealability.
PER CURIAM:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.