US v. Anthoine Plunkett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:04-cr-70083-GEC-2,4:04-cv-80205-GEC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998839970]. Mailed to: Anthoine Plunkett. [11-7011]

Appeal: 11-7011

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHOINE PLUNKETT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (4:04-cr-70083-GEC-2; 4:04-cv-80205-GEC)

Submitted:

April 6, 2012

Decided:

April 25, 2012

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthoine Plunkett, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Craig
Jon Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7011

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthoine Plunkett seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his motion for relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2006).

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)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the petition 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 Plunkett has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7011

Document: 16

Date Filed: 04/25/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3