UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-6958

Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.* The order 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 Reid's motion for a certificate of appealability 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Reid filed a self-styled “Motion Pursuant to 12(h)(3) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” in which he argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (2012) and sentence imposed for that conviction. The district court construed the motion as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

PER CURIAM: