UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7129
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO MOSLEY, a/k/a Abdullah Hamid,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00336-RJC-1; 3:14-cv-00399-
RJC)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, Melissa Louise Rikard,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Ann Claire H. Phillips, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Mosley 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mosley has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Mosley’s motion for leave to file a
supplemental informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We deny Mosley’s motions for bail or release pending appeal, for appointment of counsel,
and to hold the Government in default for failure to respond. 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
2