Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07329/USCOURTS-ca4-13-07329-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Kelvin McCollum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7329

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM KELVIN MCCOLLUM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,

Senior District Judge. (7:01-cr-00136-BR-1; 7:11-cv-00240-BR)

Submitted: January 14, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin L. West, III, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & 

LEONARD, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7329 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

William Kelvin McCollum seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is 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 McCollum has not made the requisite showing. See United 

States v. Whiteside, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. 2014)

(en banc). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 

deny McCollum’s motion to file a formal brief, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 13-7329 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-7329 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3