Court Opinion

ID: 9956779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:39.544883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:51.229369
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6163      Doc: 16         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6163

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BOBBY NELSON COLLINS, JR.,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00033-EKD-JCH-1; 7:21-cv-
        81470-EKD-JCH)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Erin Margaret Trodden, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
        Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jonathan Patrick Jones, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6163         Doc: 16       Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Bobby Nelson Collins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief

        on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment.

        The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

        appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (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 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

                                                      2