Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07997/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07997-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Gene Trappier
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7997

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-03313-TLW)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank 

Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7997 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gene Trappier seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as 

well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 

Trappier 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: 15-7997 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/26/2016 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: 15-7997 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3