US v. Kenneth Reid

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999977072]. Mailed to: Kenneth Roshaun Reid. [16-7286]

Appeal: 16-7286

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7286

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:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7286

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion seeking correction of his sentence.
We conclude that Reid’s motion was in substance a successive
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The

district

court’s

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.

2

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

Appeal: 16-7286

Doc: 5

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Reid’s motion challenged the validity of his sentence and
should

have

See Gonzalez

been
v.

construed

Crosby,

545

as

a

successive

U.S.

524,

motion. *

§ 2255

531–32

(2005);

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
absence

of

pre-filing

district

court

§ 2255 motion.

lacked

we

dismiss the appeal.
and

materials

jurisdiction

to

from

this

hear

Reid’s

In the

court,

the

successive

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).

Accordingly,

facts

authorization

United

legal
before

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

*

The district court denied relief on Reid’s prior § 2255
motion on the merits in 2010.

3