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: 2015-06-23
Citations: 607 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 15-6359
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: 607
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo Darnelle TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6359.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2015.
Decided: June 23, 2015.
Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. § 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. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 motion 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 Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tucker's motion to proceed in forma pau-peris as moot, 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.