US v. Samuel Anderson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-3. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999765181]. Mailed to: Samuel Anderson. [15-7541]

Appeal: 15-7541

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL LARELL ANDERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-3)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Samuel Larell Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Beth Drake, Jimmie
Ewing, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7541

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Samuel Larell Anderson appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2012).

The district court denied § 3582 relief

because it found that Anderson was not entitled to a sentence
reduction under Guidelines Amendment 782.

The district court

also noted that, to the extent Anderson attempted to challenge
his sentence as originally imposed by the district court, the
motion was a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction.

We

affirm in part, and dismiss in part.
As

to

the

district

court’s

denial

of

relief

under

§ 3582(c)(2), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

this

portion

of

the

district

court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court.

See

United States v. Anderson, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-3 (D.S.C. filed
Sept. 15, 2015, entered Sept. 16, 2015).
To the extent that the district court construed Anderson’s
challenge

to

his

original

sentence

as

a

successive

and

unauthorized habeas claim, that portion of the district court’s
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2

Appeal: 15-7541

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

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

a

debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Anderson

independently
has

not

reviewed

made

the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal, in part.
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