United States v. Terrell Rogers , 588 F. App'x 247 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7246
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrell Rogers appeals the district court’s orders
denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2012) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Rogers sought a sentence reduction under Guidelines
Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act. We conclude the
district court properly determined that neither the crack
cocaine Guidelines amendments nor the Fair Sentencing Act
impacted Rogers’ Guidelines calculations and resulting sentence,
as his sentence was driven by the attempted first-degree murder
cross-reference applied for his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012)
conviction and his statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(e) (2012). See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187
(4th Cir. 2010). We therefore affirm the portion of the
district court’s order denying a sentence reduction.
The order denying Rogers’ Rule 60(b) motion 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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies
2
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
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3