Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Eleanor Janet Elguera-Stinnett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pi’isoner 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.

*726 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elguera-Stinnett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility, deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, 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