US v. Anthony McQueen, No. 15-7105 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7105 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. ANTHONY MCQUEEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00257-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00871-CMH) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Angelissa Domenica Savino, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his reconsideration Fed of the R. Civ. P. district 60(b) court’s order McQueen’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice motion denying dismissing The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McQueen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
