Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-28
Citations: 678 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 16-7098
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 125–125

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Percy James TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7098
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 22, 2017
Decided: February 28, 2017
Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
Sherrie Scott Cápotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Percy James Tucker seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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, 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 the pending motions, 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