Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07067/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07067-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WALLACE M. BRYANT, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:13-cr-00121-HMH-1; 8:16-cv-02189-HMH)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,

William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7067 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are 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 

Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

further deny Bryant’s motion for a sentence reduction. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-7067 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7067 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3