Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Whitlow, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Whitlow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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. . Because Whitlow was convicted in a District of Columbia court, he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition. See Madley v. United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C.Cir.2002). .
In the absence of any assertion, much less showing, by Whitlow on remand that D.C.Code § 23-110 (Supp.2014) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, see Whitlow v. Tripp, 587 Fed.Appx. 74 (4th Cir.2014) (remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless Whit-low demonstrated that he has met the requirements of § 23-110 allowing a federal court to entertain his § 2241 petition), the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Whitlow's § 2241 petition. D.C.Code § 23-110(g) (Supp.2014).