Court Opinion

ID: 9902178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-23 22:00:28.192739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:47.444133
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6419      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6419

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        PERRY REESE, III,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00034-FL-1; 7:23-cv-00138-
        FL)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Perry Reese, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6419         Doc: 7      Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Perry Reese, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

        justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

        McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reese 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

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                        DISMISSED

               *
                To the extent Reese seeks authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255
        motion, we conclude that he fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in § 2255(h).

                                                      2