United States v. Anthony Horne , 458 F. App'x 270 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6826
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTHONY W. HORNE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Jerome B. Friedman, Senior
    District Judge. (2:07-cr-00212-JBF-JEB-1; 2:10-cv-00240-JBF)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011             Decided:   December 19, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony W. Horne, Appellant Pro Se.        D. Monique Broadnax,
    Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony W. Horne seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 2011)
    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) (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).         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    Horne    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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6826

Citation Numbers: 458 F. App'x 270

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Davis

Filed Date: 12/19/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024