United States of America v. Antonio Collins

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO COLLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00283-1; 2:23-cv-
00701)
Submitted: November 20, 2025 Decided: November 25, 2025
Before THACKER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Collins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Collins’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en
banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running
from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
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,
as here, 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. Specifically, the district court entered the supervised release
revocation judgment that Collins seeks to challenge on December 17, 2015. Collins did
not appeal, and the judgment therefore became final on December 31, 2015. Collins had
until December 31, 2016, to file a § 2255 motion, but he did not file his motion until
October 2023. In addition, Collins failed to demonstrate that the statute of limitations
should run from a date later than that on which the judgment became final.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --