Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06543/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Holland
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEVIN HOLLAND, a/k/a Kev,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00052-HCM-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00119-

HCM)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6543 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Holland seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Holland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-6543 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6543 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 3