US v. Anthony Harri


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6106 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6106 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY VONN HARRIS, a/k/a Anthony Vonne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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?