US v. Terrell Rogers, No. 14-7246 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7246 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN) Submitted: December 16, 2014 Before DUNCAN Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, December 19, 2014 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrell Rogers appeals the district court’s orders denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. Rogers sought a sentence reduction under Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act. district cocaine court properly Guidelines determined amendments nor that the Guidelines We conclude the neither Fair the crack Sentencing Act impacted Rogers’ Guidelines calculations and resulting sentence, as his sentence was driven by the attempted first-degree murder cross-reference conviction and applied his § 924(e) (2012). (4th Cir. for his 18 statutory U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) enhancement under 18 (2012) U.S.C. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 2010). We therefore affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying a sentence reduction. The order denying Rogers’ Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 2 relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies 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. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 3