UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard R. SHMUCKLER, Defendant-Appellant, 615 F. App'x 148

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Howard R. Shmuckler seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(

b) motion as an unauthorized § 2255 motion. The order denying § 2255 relief 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 Shmuckler has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. We affirm the portion of the appeal pertaining to the district court’s dismissal of Shmuckler’s Rule 60(

b) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Shmuckler, No. l:ll-cr-00344-LMB-l (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 26, 2015; entered Jan. 27, 2015); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.2015) (holding that mov-ant need not obtain a certificate of appeal-ability to appeal district court’s dismissal of a Rule 60(

b) motion that court construed as a successive habeas motion). 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.