US v. Chuck P. Collington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00342-RBH-1,4:12-cv-00287-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999376203]. Mailed to: Chuck Collington. [13-7883]

Appeal: 13-7883

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/16/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7883

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/16/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Chuck Parker Collington seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

denying

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

relief

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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

Appeal: 13-7883

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 06/16/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3