Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06332/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06332-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Collin Hawkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6332

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

COLLIN HAWKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00583-CCB-1; 1:20-cv-01788-CCB)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Collin Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6332 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Collin Hawkins 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 Hawkins 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6332 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2