US v. Reggie Kelley

Filing 920080917

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by any

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

find

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 We dispense

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are

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 -

*

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

- 3 -