Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
In these consolidated appeals, Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her petitions seeking federal habeas relief. Assa’ad-Faltas has also filed motions for summary disposition and for oral argument via video-conference in Appeal Nos. 13-1277 and 18-1278, and in Appeal No. 13-1595, she has filed motions to be declared the prevailing party and awarded costs, to exceed the informal brief length limitations, and for an extension of time to file her informal brief.
The orders Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Assa’ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Assa’ad-Fal-tas’s motions to exceed the informal brief length limitations and for an extension of time to file her informal brief in Appeal No. 13-1595, we deny Assa’ad-Faltas’s remaining motions, deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeals. 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.