US v. Raymond Chestnut

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied in 15-6641. Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680508]. Mailed to: Raymond Chestnut. [15-6636, 15-6641]

Appeal: 15-6636

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6636

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

No. 15-6641

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

Appeals 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)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 15-6636

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

No. 15-6636 affirmed and No. 15-6641 dismissed by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-6636

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
These

consolidated

appeals

challenge

two

district

court

orders denying relief on several postjudgment motions concerning
Raymond

Edward

Chestnut’s

criminal

judgment.

We

affirm

the

district court’s order in No. 15-6636, and dismiss the appeal in
No. 15-6641.
Turning first to No. 15-6636, Chestnut appeals the denial
of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion.
and find no reversible error.
In

No.

court’s

15-6641,

order

Accordingly, we affirm.

Chestnut

dismissing

We have reviewed the record

his

seeks
28

to

U.S.C.

appeal
§

2255

the

(2012)

without prejudice as successive and unauthorized.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

district
motion

The order is

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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
3

Appeal: 15-6636

ruling

Doc: 14

is

Filed: 10/19/2015

debatable,

and

Pg: 4 of 4

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
Chestnut has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
No. 15-6641.
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.

No. 15-6636 AFFIRMED
No. 15-6641 DISMISSED

4