United States v. Ronald Collins

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD COLLINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00068-1; 5:22-cv-00161)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Collins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Collins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Collins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is 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, deny Collins’

motions for abeyance, 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