Collin LaFreniere v. Joseph Walters

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7062 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-7062

COLLIN ZACHARY LAFRENIERE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH WALTERS, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:25-cv-00189-HEH)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 30, 2026

Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON & FLOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-7062 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Collin Zachary LaFreniere seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that LaFreniere has not

made the requisite showing. When a state court has addressed an issue that is subsequently

raised in a § 2254 petition, federal courts may not grant the § 2254 petition unless the

underlying state adjudication “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved

an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States” or “(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate

the district court’s finding that the habeas court did not unreasonably apply Strickland * or

unreasonably determine the facts before it in finding LaFreniere had not established

prejudice. See Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122 (2009) (explaining habeas relief

* Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-7062 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/30/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

is available for ineffective assistance claims “only if the state-court decision unreasonably

applied the more general standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims established

by Strickland”); see also Sigmon v. Stirling, 956 F.3d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 2020) (“The

standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both highly deferential, and when the

two apply in tandem, review is doubly so.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

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