Opinion
19-7840
06-26-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CURTIS LEE RUCKER, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 22, 2023
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)
Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.