US v. Kenneth Reid, No. 13-7322 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant -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; 0:13-cv-01943-CMC) Submitted: September 20, 2013 Decided: September 24, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth court s order Roshaun dismissing (West Supp. 2013) motion. Reid as seeks to successive appeal his 28 the district U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a debatable claim of the right. denial of a constitutional Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
