Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06449/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Billy Joe Collins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BILLY JOE COLLINS, a/k/a B.J., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00375-NCT-4; 1:11-cv-00925-

NCT-JLW) 

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Billy Joe Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6449 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Billy Joe Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 

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: 15-6449 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 2