Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06359/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06359-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LORENZO DARNELLE TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00759-JFA-1; 3:14-cv-00557-JFA)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6359 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

successive. The order 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 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Tucker’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis as moot, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 15-6359 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6359 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3