United States v. Anthoine Plunkett

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7093 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHOINE PLUNKETT, a/k/a Antoine Plunkett,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge. (4:04-cr-70083-MFU-2; 4:21-cv- 81473-MFU-PMS)

Submitted: July 21, 2025 Decided: August 6, 2025

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthoine Plunkett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7093 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Anthoine Plunkett seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part his authorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Plunkett has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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