United States v. Anthony Edgerton , 590 F. App'x 264 ( 2015 )


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  •                             UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-7204

Citation Numbers: 590 F. App'x 264

Judges: Shedd, Keenan, Diaz

Filed Date: 1/26/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024