Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07732/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07732-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antone Henry Poindexter
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTONE HENRY POINDEXTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (3:97-cr-00079-JCC-1; 3:15-cv-00375-REP)

Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antone Henry Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley 

Miller, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7732 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Antone Henry Poindexter seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

successive and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are

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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Poindexter 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 

Appeal: 15-7732 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7732 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3