Court Opinion

ID: 9963605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 21:00:42.501266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:54.564576
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6642      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/24/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-6642

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTONIO SHROPSHIRE, a/k/a Brill, a/k/a B, a/k/a Tony,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00051-CCB-3; 1:21-cv-00202-CCB)

        Submitted: March 4, 2024                                          Decided: April 24, 2024

        Before RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Antonio Shropshire, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6642       Doc: 10         Filed: 04/24/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Antonio Shropshire seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        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 Shropshire has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Shropshire’s motion to

        supplement his application for a certificate of appealability, we deny his motion for 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