Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07145/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vernon A. Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

VERNON A. COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:87-cr-00338-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-00028-CCB)

Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon A. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7145 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Vernon A. Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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. 

 * Although Collins insists that the district court 

improperly construed his motion as a § 2255 motion rather than a 

former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion, we conclude that Collins’ 

substantive claim is not cognizable under former Rule 35(a), and 

therefore, the district court’s construction of the motion was 

not erroneous. See United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 

(4th Cir. 1992).

Appeal: 16-7145 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Collins 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

Appeal: 16-7145 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 3 of 3