United States of America v. William Kelvin McCollum

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7329
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM KELVIN MCCOLLUM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt,
Senior District Judge. (7:01-cr-00136-BR-1; 7:11-cv-00240-BR)
Submitted: January 14, 2015 Decided: January 28, 2015
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin L. West, III, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY &
LEONARD, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Kelvin McCollum seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying as untimely 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 McCollum has not made the requisite showing. See United
States v. Whiteside, __ F.3d __, 2014 WL 7245453 (4th Cir. 2014)
(en banc). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny McCollum’s motion to file a formal brief, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --