US v. Percy Tucker


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [1000022504-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999962692-2], denying Motion for other relief [999958897-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999927412-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999927408-2], denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999923132-3] Originating case number: 2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1,2:15-cv-00294-AWA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032076]. Mailed to: Percy Tucker. [16-7098]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7098 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7098 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PERCY JAMES TUCKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1; 2:15-cv-00294-AWA) Submitted: February 22, 2017 Decided: February 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percy James Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7098 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/28/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Percy James Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 reconsideration. U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). See 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” When the district 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 the pending motions, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 adequately presented in the Appeal: 16-7098 Doc: 24 materials before Filed: 02/28/2017 this court Pg: 3 of 3 and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?