Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Anthony Marcantoni, 16-7070 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-7070 Visitors: 42
Filed: Oct. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7070 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANTHONY J. MARCANTONI, a/k/a Mr. Purple, a/k/a The Italian, 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-00777-RWT-15; 8:15-cv-02194-RWT) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7070


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTHONY J. MARCANTONI, a/k/a Mr. Purple, a/k/a The Italian,

                      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-00777-RWT-15; 8:15-cv-02194-RWT)


Submitted:   October 13, 2016             Decided:   October 18, 2016


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony J. Marcantoni, Appellant Pro Se. Sumon Srinivas Dantiki,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Anthony J. Marcantoni 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.              28   U.S.C.    § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).     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) (2012).                    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

Marcantoni has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer