US v. Kevin Richardson, No. 14-6922 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6922 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEVIN RICHARDSON, a/k/a Kevin Bookman, a/k/a KB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-02134-CMC-1; 3:13-cv-01525-CMC) Submitted: November 26, 2014 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 24, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing, Julius Ness Richardson, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. judgment. The justice judge or P. 59(e) orders are issues motion not a to alter appealable certificate of or amend unless a that circuit appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). issue absent “a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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); see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2