Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07929/USCOURTS-ca4-05-07929-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

Document 1

Appeal: 05-7929 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2006 Pg: 1 of 4
Judge Luttig participated in the consideration of this case, *

but his resignation from the court took effect on the date the

decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7929

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CR-00-670-DWS; CA-05-2049-CMC)

Submitted: April 24, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior *

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sammie Lamont McCollough, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Appeal: 05-7929 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2006 Pg: 2 of 4
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Appeal: 05-7929 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2006 Pg: 3 of 4
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Sammie Lamont McCollough seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that McCollough 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 05-7929 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/10/2006 Pg: 4 of 4