Court Opinion

ID: 4700948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-02 19:04:09.558553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.763840
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6556

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ANTTWAINE MANDWELL DUNLAP, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Anttwaine Marquis
Dunlap, a/k/a Gotti,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00070-RBS-FBS-
1; 4:20-cv-00181-RBS)

Submitted: June 29, 2021                                          Decided: July 2, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anttwaine Mandwell Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Anttwaine Mandwell Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dunlap 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

                                             2