Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06776/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06776-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reggie Lamar Kelley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGGIE LAMAR KELLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:04-cr-00998-CMC-1; 3:07-cv-70131-CMC)

Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: September 17, 2008

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Lamar Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Christopher

Todd Hagins, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6776 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*Although Kelley also filed a notice of appeal challenging the

district court’s separate order dismissing his post-judgment motion

as a successive § 2255 motion, Kelley does not address the district

court’s dismissal of that motion in his informal brief and has

therefore waived appellate review of that order. See Local Rule

34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the

informal brief.”). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Lamar Kelley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.*

 The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.

2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Kelley 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: 08-6776 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6776 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 3