United States of America v. Antonio Shropshire, a/k/a Brill, a/k/a B, a/k/a Tony

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6642
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO SHROPSHIRE, a/k/a Brill, a/k/a B, a/k/a Tony,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cr-00051-CCB-3; 1:21-cv-00202-CCB)
Submitted: March 4, 2024 Decided: April 24, 2024
Before RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Shropshire, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Shropshire seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
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 Shropshire has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Shropshire’s motion to
supplement his application for a certificate of appealability, we deny his motion for 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

-- 2 of 2 --