Court Opinion

ID: 9390127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:00:50.939419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.422672
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7367      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7367

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        REGGIE LAMAR KELLEY, a/k/a Lil Red,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00998-CMC-1;
        3:16-cv-02029-CMC)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Reggie Lamar Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7367      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Reggie Lamar Kelley appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P.

        60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior order denying relief on Kelley’s 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion, as well as the court’s order denying Kelley’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion

        and motion for recusal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See United States v. Kelley, Nos. 3:04-

        cr-00998-CMC-1; 3:16-cv-02029-CMC (D.S.C. Oct. 6, 2022; Nov. 8, 2022). 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.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    2