United States v. Raymond Edward Chestnut , 698 F. App'x 91 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6554
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND EDWARD CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02013-
RBH)
Submitted: September 25, 2017 Decided: October 2, 2017
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Edward Chestnut seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on his motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Turning first to Chestnut’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction in sentence, we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Chestnut, Nos. 4:05-cr-01044-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-02013-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2017).
As to the district court’s denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions, this portion of the
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.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 Chestnut has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of
the denial of Chestnut’s § 2255 motions.
2
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