US v. Kenny Major, No. 10-6427 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6427 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KENNY REGAN MAJOR, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (7:06-cr-00813-HMH-1; 7:10-cv-70143-HMH) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 28, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenny Regan Major, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenny Regan Major seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Major has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
