US v. Raymond Chestnut

Filing

AMENDED OPINION filed amending and superseding opinion dated 10/19/2015. Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1. Copies to all parties. Mailed to: Raymond Chestnut. [15-6636, 15-6641]

Appeal: 15-6636

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/18/2016

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UNPUBLISHED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
Amended:

Decided:
November 18, 2016

October 19, 2015

Appeal: 15-6636

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

No. 15-6636 affirmed, and No. 15-6641, dismissed by unpublished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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 19

Filed: 11/18/2016

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

motion.

We

reversible error.
In

No.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

appeal

the

district

Accordingly, we affirm.

15-6641,

Chestnut

seeks

to

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion
without prejudice as successive and unauthorized.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

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).

When the district court denies

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating
district
debatable

that

court’s
or

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

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

Doc: 19

Filed: 11/18/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

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 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