United States v. Kenneth Reid

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6215 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6215

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: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6215 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his

motion under “2255(f)(3)” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it as successive

and unauthorized. 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, as here, 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 Reid has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reid’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Reid’s motion to appoint counsel and

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