US v. Raymond Edward Chestnut


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1,4:16-cv-02013-RBH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000165364]. Mailed to: Raymond Edward Chestnut. [17-6554]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-6554 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6554 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal 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; 4:16-cv-02013RBH) Submitted: September 25, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-6554 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Raymond Edward Chestnut seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Turning first to Chestnut’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Chestnut, Nos. 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02013-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017). As to the district court’s denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions, this portion of the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 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 of the denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions. 2 Appeal: 17-6554 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/02/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?