United States v. Kenneth Reid

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 22-7230
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7230 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7230

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: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7230 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court’s order

dismissing his motion for judicial notice and to correct an unconstitutional sentence. 1

Reid’s motion was, in substance, a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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)).

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

have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion. 2 See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.

524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the

1 The court’s order also dismissed Reid’s letter asking why he was not brought back to court for resentencing after the order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 was vacated and his case remanded. Reid confines his appeal to the dismissal of his motion. 2 The district court denied relief on Reid’s initial § 2255 motion on the merits in 2010.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7230 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

absence of pre-filing authorization from this Court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to

hear Reid’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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