Court Opinion

ID: 9405259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:44.377919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.433597
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7840      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-7840

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        CURTIS LEE RUCKER, JR.,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00057-KDB-DCK-1; 5:19-cv-
        00150-KDB)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-7840       Doc: 14         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        Rucker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

        judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rucker has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Rucker’s motion to amend his

        appeal, * 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         DISMISSED

               *
                 In the motion to amend, Rucker appears to ask that we consider United States v.
        Gary, 954 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2020), rev’d sub nom. Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090
        (2021), in deciding his appeal.

                                                      2