Court Opinion

ID: 9962847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:51.516845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:16.675766
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6215      Doc: 14         Filed: 04/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-6215

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-6215       Doc: 14         Filed: 04/22/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his

        motion under “2255(f)(3)” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it 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 Reid has not made

        the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Reid’s motion for a certificate of

        appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Reid’s motion to appoint counsel and

        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

                                                      2