US v. Kenneth Reid, No. 16-7286 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7286 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Jimmie Ewing, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion seeking correction of his sentence. We conclude that Reid’s motion was in substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” (2012). 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 both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. Reid’s motion challenged the validity of his sentence and should have See Gonzalez been v. construed Crosby, 545 as a successive U.S. 524, motion. * § 2255 531–32 (2005); States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). absence of pre-filing district court § 2255 motion. lacked we dismiss the appeal. and materials jurisdiction to from this hear Reid’s In the court, the successive See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, facts authorization United legal before deny a certificate of appealability and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * The district court denied relief on Reid’s prior § 2255 motion on the merits in 2010. 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.
