US v. Anthony Harri

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00289-TDS-1,1:13-cv-00232-TDS-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court. [999871288]. Mailed to: Anthony Vonn Harris. [16-6106]

Appeal: 16-6106

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY VONN HARRIS, a/k/a Anthony Vonne Harris,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00289-TDS-1; 1:13-cv-00232-TDS-JEP)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Vonn Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett,
Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6106

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Anthony Vonn Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
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.

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
Harris has not made the requisite showing. *

*

Accordingly, we deny

Specifically, the district court’s dispositive conclusion
— that our decision in United States v. Mungro, 754 F.3d 267
(4th Cir. 2014), foreclosed Harris’ argument that the Supreme
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 16-6106

a

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/28/2016

certificate

dispense

of

with

contentions

are

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551
(2015), invalidated his armed career criminal designation — is
not debatable.

3