UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHOINE PLUNKETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (4:04-cr-70083-GEC-2; 4:04-cv-80205-GEC)
Submitted: April 6, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthoine Plunkett, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Craig
Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthoine Plunkett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion for relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2006). 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) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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 petition 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 Plunkett 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3