Court Opinion

ID: 9390135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:00.561799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.649698
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6061      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6061

        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 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 25, 2023

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

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6061      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court’s order

        dismissing his motion for an evidentiary or resentencing hearing (the hearing motion) and

        his motion challenging the sentence imposed for his conviction on count 1 (the sentence

        challenge motion). We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.

              The sentence challenge motion and portions of the hearing motion challenged the

        validity of Reid’s sentence, and we conclude they were in substance a successive 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion. As to this motion and portions, the district court’s dismissal 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 the district

        court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district

        court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the

        dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that his 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. The sentence challenge motion and portions of the hearing motion

        should have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby,

        545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6061         Doc: 10        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this Court, the district court lacked

        jurisdiction to hear Reid’s successive § 2255 motion.         See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.

                 As to the district court’s dismissal of the remainder of the hearing motion, we have

        reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The remainder of the hearing motion

        challenged as erroneous Reid’s failure to be brought back to the district court for a hearing

        after this court vacated the district court’s order denying his motion under § 404(b) of the

        First Step Act of 2018 (FSA 2018) for a sentence reduction, see United States v. Reid,

        823 F. App’x 223, 224 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-7803) (concluding that Reid was eligible to

        receive sentence reduction under FSA 2018, vacating order denying § 404(b) motion, and

        remanding for further proceedings). The opinion in Reid, however, did not require that

        Reid be brought back into court for a hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

        dismissal order in part. United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Jan. 5,

        2023).

                 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 IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      3