Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo Darnelle TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-21
Citations: 333 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 09-7108
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo Darnelle TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 747–747

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo Darnelle TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7108.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2009.
Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Tara L. McGregor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.