US v. Wallace Bryant, Jr., No. 16-7067 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. WALLACE M. BRYANT, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00121-HMH-1; 8:16-cv-02189-HMH) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wallace M. Bryant, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. orders are issues not a appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a unless of circuit justice appealability. or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” a The 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); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bryant has not made the requisite showing. a certificate further dispense deny with of appealability Bryant’s oral motion argument and for a dismiss the sentence because 2 Accordingly, we deny the appeal. We reduction. We facts and 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.
