Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-03-2021
Case Style:
United States of America v. Kenneth Reid
Case Number: 21-6831
Judge: Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges
Court:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
On appeal from The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill
Plaintiff's Attorney: William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
United States Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with appealing from the district court’s order denying his motion for the clerk to reissue a remand order, motion for a writ, motion for acquittal,
motion to appoint counsel, motion to correct his presentence report, and writ of habeas corpus.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s
denial of Reid’s motions for the clerk to reissue a remand order and for a writ. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Reid, No. 0:04-cr00353-CMC-1 (D.S.C. May 10, 2021).
Reid’s motions for acquittal, to correct his presentence report, and writ of habeas
corpus were, in substance, a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and Reid also sought
appointment of counsel to pursue a § 2255 motion. The denial of these orders is not
appealable in the absence of a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find
that the district 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). 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.
3
Reid’s motions challenged the validity of his convictions and sentence and should
have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion.*
See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S.
524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the
absence of pre-filing authorization from this Court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
hear Reid’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part.
Outcome: 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
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: