Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06851/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06851-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Shaw Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6851

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT SHAW NELSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5; 

5:99-cv-04168-CMC)

Submitted: February 3, 2020 Decided: February 5, 2020

Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6851 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (6) motions for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion, and 

denying his motion to compel the Government to supplement or correct its disclosures or 

responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

The denial of Nelson’s Rule 60(b) motions is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). See 

generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Nelson has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal in part with respect to the denial of Nelson’s Rule 60(b) motions. In addition, upon 

review, we affirm the denial of Nelson’s remaining post-judgment motions for the reasons 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6851 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, No. 5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5 (D.S.C. 

May 15, 2019). We grant Nelson’s motion to supplement his informal brief and 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 IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6851 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/05/2020 Pg: 3 of 3