UNITED STATES v. REID (2019)

Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court's order construing his motions to produce the record, to correct, and to dismiss as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and dismissing them as successive and denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018).

The portion of the district court's order construing Reid's motions as § 2255 motions and dismissing them as successive is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 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 Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

With respect to the portion of the district court's order denying Reid's motion under the First Step Act of 2018, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reid's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Reid has forfeited appellate review of the court's ruling. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court's order.

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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.