Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07743/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07743-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Cannon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY CANNON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00048-CMH-3; 1:16-cv00739-CMH)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 16-7743 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Cannon has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cannon’s 

motion for appointment of counsel, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 16-7743 Doc: 28 Filed: 01/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 2