US v. Lorenzo Tucker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999573864-2] Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00759-JFA-1,3:14-cv-00557-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999607475]. Mailed to: L. Tucker. [15-6359]

Appeal: 15-6359

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6359

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORENZO DARNELLE TUCKER, a/k/a Lamb,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00759-JFA-1; 3:14-cv-00557-JFA)

Submitted:

June 18, 2015

Decided:

June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo Darnelle Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6359

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

(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 a debatable claim
of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85.
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 pauperis as moot, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

are

Appeal: 15-6359

Doc: 7

adequately

Filed: 06/23/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3