Court Opinion

ID: 2820929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-28 19:01:54.540727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:07.562428
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6645

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LAMATAVOUS REGTEZ COLLINS, a/k/a Red,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00466-MBS-3; 1:13-cv-03486-MBS)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                               Decided:

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamatavous Regtez Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale,
John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Lamatavous    Regtez          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.

      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