Court Opinion

ID: 809507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-10-03 10:23:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:25.596681
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-6701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LEON MCCOLLUM, a/k/a Leon McCullough, a/k/a Black,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:06-cr-00082-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-70084-RBH)

Submitted:   September 27, 2012           Decided:   October 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon McCollum, Appellant Pro Se.       Robert Frank Daley, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
Arthur   Bradley  Parham,   Assistant   United States  Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Leon    McCollum       seeks     to    appeal    the   district      court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

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) (2006).                   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) (2006).               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 McCollum 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

                                             2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3