US v. Rodney Reep, No. 09-7611 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7611 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY REEP, a/k/a Dirty Harry, a/k/a Harry, Defendant Appellant. No. 09-7691 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RODNEY REEP, a/k/a Dirty Harry, a/k/a Harry, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-9; 2:08-cv-00050-RAJ) Submitted: May 17, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. No. 09-7611 dismissed; No. 09-7691 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rodney Reep, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Rodney Reep challenges the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion (appeal No. 09-7611), and motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court s judgment as to his § 3582(c)(2) motion (appeal No. 09-7691). The § 2255 order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this claims by showing U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of that by assessment court is of (2006). demonstrating any district denial a A that of debatable the 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 Reep has not made the requisite showing. Therefore, we deny leave to proceed in certificate forma pauperis, deny a dismiss appeal No. 09-7611. 3 of appealability, and In appeal No. 09-7691, we have reviewed the district court s orders denying Reep a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and denying his post-judgment motion. Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Reep, No. 2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-9 (E.D. Va. July 22, 2009; August 21, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. No. 09-7611 DISMISSED No. 09-7691 AFFIRMED 4

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.