US v. James Tucker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:11-cr-00079-RAJ-TEM-1,2:13-cv-00655-RAJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999571889]. Mailed to: James Ramon Tucker FCI EDGEFIELD FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 725 Edgefield, SC 29824-0000. [14-7700]

Appeal: 14-7700

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES RAMON TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:11-cr-00079-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:13-cv-00655-RAJ)

Submitted:

April 23, 2015

Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ramon Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Appellee.

Sherrie Scott Capotosto,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7700

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Ramon Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
Limiting

our

review

to

the

issues

raised

in

Tucker’s

informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we conclude that Tucker
has not made the requisite showing.
certificate
dispense

of

with

appealability
oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny a

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 14-7700

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 04/27/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3