United States v. Anthony Cannon ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY CANNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00048-CMH-3; 1:16-cv-
00739-CMH)
Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 27, 2020
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States
Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Cannon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
the district 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). 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 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 Cannon has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cannon’s
motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2