Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07204/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7204 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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.”).

Appeal: 13-7204 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 13-7204 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3