US v. Frederick McKenzie, No. 13-7501 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7501 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREDERICK ABRAHAM MCKENZIE, a/k/a a/k/a Jamaican Vince, a/k/a Vince, Camron Darnell Lewis, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:04-cr-00556-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-00667-TLW) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Abraham McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frederick Abraham McKenzie seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McKenzie s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate dispense of with appealability, and oral because argument 2 dismiss the the appeal. 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.
