US v. Kenneth Reid

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999891597-2] Originating case number: 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999919700]. [16-6958]

Appeal: 16-6958

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH ROSHAUN REID,
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-1)

Submitted:

August 25, 2016

Decided:

August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
Beth Drake, Acting
United
States
Attorney,
Jimmie
Ewing,
William
Kenneth
Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6958

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

motion. *
judge

as

successive

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

his

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

When 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.

*

Reid filed a self-styled “Motion Pursuant to 12(h)(3) for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction” in which he argued that the
district court lacked jurisdiction over his conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 924(j) (2012) and sentence imposed for that
conviction. The district court construed the motion as a motion
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

2

Appeal: 16-6958

Doc: 6

Filed: 08/30/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Reid has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Reid’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3