US v. Kenneth Reid, No. 12-7875 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7875 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant -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. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jeffrey Mikell Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth reconsideration Roshaun of the Reid district filed a court s motion prior seeking denial of his motion to correct error in the presentence report ( PSR ) and challenging the legality of his sentence. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration, determining in its order that Reid had not demonstrated the presence of any error in the PSR warranting correction. The court also treated Reid s challenge to his sentence as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Motion to Reid subsequently filed a self-styled Rebuttal Correct Clerical Errors. The district court construed the rebuttal motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment and denied the motion. appeals. Reid now We affirm in part and dismiss in part. With respect to the portion of the district court s order denying Reid s motion for reconsideration, reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we have Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-cr-00353- CMC-1 (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2012). We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of Reid s motion to alter or amend judgment, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review), 2 because Reid did not rely present new evidence, on or a change identify a in controlling clear error law, of law. See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (listing the three circumstances under which Rule 59(e) relief may be granted). With respect to that portion of the district court s order construing successive appealable Reid s motion, § 2255 motion that unless a A certificate of portion circuit certificate of appealability. for reconsideration of justice the or order judge as is issues a not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). on the merits, demonstrating district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies relief prisoner satisfies reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. at 484-85. 3 a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reid has not made the requisite showing. deny Reid s motion appealability, dispense with contentions are and oral to suspend dismiss this argument adequately rules, deny portion because presented in of the the Accordingly, we a certificate the appeal. facts of We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.
