United States v. Curtis Rucker, Jr. ( 2023 )

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
2