US v. Terrell Roger

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1,1:13-cv-00116-WMN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999496963]. Mailed to: Terrell Rogers. [14-7246]

Appeal: 14-7246

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 19, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7246

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Terrell

Rogers

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012)

and

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

motion.

For

the

reasons

that

follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Rogers

sought

a

sentence

reduction

under

Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act.
district
cocaine

court

properly

Guidelines

determined

amendments

nor

that
the

Guidelines

We conclude the
neither

Fair

the

crack

Sentencing

Act

impacted Rogers’ Guidelines calculations and resulting sentence,
as his sentence was driven by the attempted first-degree murder
cross-reference
conviction

and

applied
his

§ 924(e) (2012).
(4th

Cir.

for

his

18

statutory

U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1)

enhancement

under

18

(2012)
U.S.C.

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187

2010).

We

therefore

affirm

the

portion

of

the

district court’s order denying a sentence reduction.
The order denying Rogers’ Rule 60(b) motion is not
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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
2

Appeal: 14-7246

relief

Doc: 10

on

the

demonstrating
district

Filed: 12/19/2014

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

Pg: 3 of 3

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rogers has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of
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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

3