US v. Antonio Shropshire, No. 22-6642 (4th Cir. 2024)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6642 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTONIO SHROPSHIRE, a/k/a Brill, a/k/a B,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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.