UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7204
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY QUINN EDGERTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00026-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00225-MR)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Quinn Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise
Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Quinn Edgerton seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district 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.
*
Although Edgerton filed a supplement to his § 2255 motion
in which he raised alternative grounds for relief, Edgerton
forfeited review of the district court’s denial of these
alternative grounds by failing to address the denial in his
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also United States
v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a
well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument
section of the opening brief are abandoned.”).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Edgerton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
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
3