United States v. Curtis Rucker, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2023
• Docket: 19-7840
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7840 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7840

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS LEE RUCKER, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

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)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Lee Rucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-7840 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

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.