US v. Raymond Chestnut, No. 15-6636 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 19, 2015.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6636 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-6641 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Amended: Decided: November 18, 2016 October 19, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. No. 15-6636 affirmed, and No. 15-6641, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: These consolidated appeals challenge two district court orders denying relief on several postjudgment motions concerning Raymond Edward Chestnut’s criminal judgment. We affirm the district court’s order in No. 15-6636, and dismiss the appeal in No. 15-6641. Turning first to No. 15-6636, Chestnut appeals the denial of his motion. We reversible error. In No. have reviewed the record and find no appeal the district Accordingly, we affirm. 15-6641, Chestnut seeks to court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion without prejudice as successive and unauthorized. not appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or The order is 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 relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating district debatable that court’s or reasonable assessment wrong. Slack jurists would of the v. McDaniel, find constitutional 529 U.S. that the claims 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 3 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 Chestnut has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in No. 15-6641. 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. No. 15-6636 AFFIRMED No. 15-6641 DISMISSED 4
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.
