United States of America v. Anthoine Plunkett, a/k/a Antoine Plunkett

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --