Shain Collins v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999911519-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00474-GEC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000090139]. Mailed to: Shain Collins. [16-6835]

Appeal: 16-6835

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6835

SHAIN CLAUDE COLLINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00474-GEC)

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shain Claude Collins, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6835

Doc: 14

Filed: 05/30/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shain Claude Collins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 Collins 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 presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2