US v. Keoki Harris, No. 13-6812 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6812 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. KEOKI KENTA HARRIS, a/k/a Kenta Harris, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-01221-GRA-1) Submitted: September 19, 2013 Decided: October 17, 2013 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keoki Kenta Harris, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Keoki Kenta Harris seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 dismissing it on that basis. a circuit justice appealability. or (West Supp. 2013) motion, and The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief as we an construe Harris s application 2 to notice file a of appeal second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). satisfy either of these Harris s claims do not criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
