US v. Percy Tucker
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?