US v. Kevin Holland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999603221-2] Originating case number: 4:06-cr-00052-HCM-TEM-1,4:13-cv-00119-HCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999658130]. Mailed to: Kevin Holland. [15-6543]

Appeal: 15-6543

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KEVIN HOLLAND, a/k/a Kev,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (4:06-cr-00052-HCM-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00119HCM)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided:

September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant
United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6543

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kevin Holland seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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
Holland has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-6543

Doc: 18

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3