Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06741/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06741-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trevor Reed
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TREVOR REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. J. Frederick Motz, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-cr-00353-M-1; 5:14-cv-00502-M)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trevor Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan 

Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6741 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Trevor Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal of 

his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and the 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to

reconsider that judgment. 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 

Reed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6741 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6741 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3