US v. McCollough, No. 05-7929 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7929 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMMIE LAMONT MCCOLLOUGH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-670-DWS; CA-05-2049-CMC) Submitted: April 24, 2006 Decided: May 10, 2006 Before LUTTIG* and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammie Lamont McCollough, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. * Judge Luttig participated in the consideration of this case, but his resignation from the court took effect on the date the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Sammie Lamont McCollough seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and subsequent motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating constitutional that A prisoner satisfies this standard by reasonable claims are 28 jurists debatable would and that find any that his dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCollough has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.