United States v. Cedric McKenith

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 29, 2022
• Docket: 22-6741
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6741 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC ANTOINE MCKENITH, a/k/a Antoine Cedric McKenith,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00026-D-1; 7:19-cv-00203-D)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Antoine McKenith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6741 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Antoine McKenith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

The district court’s order dismissing McKenith’s § 2255 motion is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that McKenith has not made the requisite showing. See United States v.

Scarfo, 41 F.4th 136, 195 (3d Cir. 2022) (explaining that Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct.

2191 (2019), “has no bearing on [18 U.S.C.] § 922(d)”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

As to the denial of McKenith’s motion for compassionate release, we review the

district court’s order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185

(4th Cir. 2021). Limiting our review to the issues raised in McKenith’s informal brief, see

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6741 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014), we discern no

abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of McKenith’s motion. We therefore affirm

the district court’s order as to that motion.

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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART