Court Opinion

ID: 4172698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-30 20:04:13.864595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:07.160733
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 16-6835

SHAIN CLAUDE COLLINS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00474-GEC)

Submitted: May 25, 2017                                           Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shain Claude Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Shain Claude Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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