US v. Raymond Chestnut

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1,4:11-cv-02488-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999364592]. Mailed to: Raymond Chestnut. [14-6118]

Appeal: 14-6118

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:11-cv-02488-RBH)

Submitted:

May 22, 2014

Before TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

Chief

Decided: May 29, 2014

Judge,

and

HAMILTON

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina;
Arthur
Bradley
Parham,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6118

Doc: 8

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his motion for reconsideration as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on
that

basis.

justice

or

The
judge

order
issues

is
a

not

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

unless

a

circuit

appealability.

28

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) (2012).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When 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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Chestnut has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 14-6118

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 05/29/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3