US v. Reginald Smith

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999440402-2] Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00103-RGD-LRL-1,4:14-cv-00088-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460055]. Mailed to: Reginald Smith. [14-7327]

Appeal: 14-7327

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD LEON SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00103-RGD-LRL-1; 4:14-cv-00088-RGD)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Leon Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7327

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Reginald

Leon

28

U.S.C.

the

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

his

appeal

motion.

a

on

to

order

issues

relief

seeks

court’s

judge

denying

Smith

of

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 14-7327

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3