US v. Wallace M. Bryant, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999924563-2] Originating case number: 8:13-cr-00121-HMH-1,8:16-cv-02189-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990782]. Mailed to: Bryant. [16-7067]

Appeal: 16-7067

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WALLACE M. BRYANT, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:13-cr-00121-HMH-1; 8:16-cv-02189-HMH)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7067

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Wallace

M.

Bryant,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
orders

are

issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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

certificate

further
dispense

deny
with

of

appealability

Bryant’s
oral

motion
argument

and

for

a

dismiss

the

sentence

because
2

Accordingly, we deny

the

appeal.

We

reduction.

We

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-7067

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 12/20/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3