US v. Kenneth Reid, No. 10-7750 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7750 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant Appellant.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. Julian Abele Cook, Jr., District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1; 0:09-cv-70126-CMC) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 21, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth court s orders Roshaun Reid denying seeks relief to on appeal the 28 U.S.C. his district § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and his motion for a certificate of appealability. * justice or These orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). of appealability. 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 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 Reid has not * made the requisite showing. We construe Reid s motion for a certificate of appealability, which was filed within the time limit allotted for filing a notice of appeal from the district court s order denying Reid s § 2255 motion, as a timely notice of appeal. 2 Accordingly, we deny 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 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.
