US v. Reid, No. 06-6798 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6798 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CARLOS VANCE REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00460-PMD; 2:06-cv-00202-PMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos Vance Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Alan Gray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carlos Vance Reid seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) demonstrating (2000). that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 28 U.S.C. standard find that by any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.