United States v. Vernon Collins , 672 F. App'x 302 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
VERNON A. COLLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:87-cr-00338-CCB-1; 1:16-cv-00028-CCB)
Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vernon A. Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vernon A. Collins 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.
* Although Collins insists that the district court
improperly construed his motion as a § 2255 motion rather than a
former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) motion, we conclude that Collins’
substantive claim is not cognizable under former Rule 35(a), and
therefore, the district court’s construction of the motion was
not erroneous. See United States v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443
(4th Cir. 1992).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Collins 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 before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3