United States v. Reshod Everett

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RESHOD JAMAR EVERETT, a/k/a Kool, a/k/a Kool-Aid,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00333-D-1; 5:24-cv-00619-D)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reshod Jamar Everett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6911 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Reshod Jamar Everett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. First, to the extent that the document construed as Everett’s

informal brief is also a motion for designation of the record on appeal, we deny it, as the

listed documents are already a part of the record. The district court’s 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)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everett has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, to the extent that the document construed as a

supplemental informal brief is also styled as a motion for a certificate of appealability, we

deny it 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