US v. Anthony Coleman


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999616092-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999616094-2] Originating case number: 8:10-cr-00305-RWT-1,8:13-cv-00847-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999681642]. Mailed to: Anthony Coleman. [15-6874]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6874 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6874 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY COLEMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:10-cr-00305-RWT-1; 8:13-cv-00847-RWT) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Crumpton, Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kevin Louis Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, Antonio J. Reynolds, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-6874 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Anthony Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal Appeal: 15-6874 Doc: 11 contentions are Filed: 10/20/2015 adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?