Court Opinion

ID: 811275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-11-05 19:50:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:26.696800
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-6632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTONIO A. MINOR, a/k/a Whiteboy,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00210-CMH-1; 1:11-cv-01122-CMH)

Submitted:   September 26, 2012           Decided:   November 5, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio A. Minor, Appellant Pro Se.    A. Marisa Chun, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Antonio A. Minor seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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) (2006).                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 Minor has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                          We

deny Minor’s motion for appointment of counsel.                         We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   the   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                    3