US v. Anthony McQueen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status. Originating case number: 1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1, 1:07-cv-00871-CMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999737305]. Mailed to: Anthony McQueen. [15-7105]

Appeal: 15-7105

Doc: 21

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00871-CMH)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Angelissa Domenica Savino,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7105

Doc: 21

Filed: 01/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of
the

denial

of

his

reconsideration

Fed

of

the

R.

Civ.

P.

district

60(b)

court’s

order

McQueen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

motion

denying

dismissing

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

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.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
McQueen has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2

We

Appeal: 15-7105

Doc: 21

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 01/19/2016

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3