Opinion
22-6701
09-27-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant-Appellant.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: September 22, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss count 1 and his motion for judicial notice of acquittal on count 3. Reid's motions were, in substance, a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The denial of these motions 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 the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Reid's motions challenged the validity of his convictions 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.
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.
DISMISSED.
The district court denied relief on Reid's prior § 2255 motion on the merits in 2010.