UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6851
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERT SHAW NELSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5;
5:99-cv-04168-CMC)
Submitted: February 3, 2020 Decided: February 5, 2020
Before MOTZ, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Shaw Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Shaw Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (6) motions for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion, and
denying his motion to compel the Government to supplement or correct its disclosures or
responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
The denial of Nelson’s Rule 60(b) motions is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). See
generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nelson has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal in part with respect to the denial of Nelson’s Rule 60(b) motions. In addition, upon
review, we affirm the denial of Nelson’s remaining post-judgment motions for the reasons
2
stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, No. 5:95-cr-00333-CMC-5 (D.S.C.
May 15, 2019). We grant Nelson’s motion to supplement his informal brief and 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 IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART
3