Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHUCK PARKER COLLINGTON, a/k/a Chuck Berry Collington, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00342-RBH-1; 4:12-cv-00287-RBH) Submitted: April 21, 2014 Decided: June 16, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7883 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. CHUCK PARKER COLLINGTON, a/k/a Chuck Berry Collington, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:09-cr-00342-RBH-1; 4:12-cv-00287-RBH) Submitted: April 21, 2014 Decided: June 16, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublish..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7883
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHUCK PARKER COLLINGTON, a/k/a Chuck Berry Collington,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-00342-RBH-1; 4:12-cv-00287-RBH)
Submitted: April 21, 2014 Decided: June 16, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chuck Parker Collington, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chuck Parker Collington 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 Collington 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
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3