United States v. Raymond Chestnut , 573 F. App'x 261 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6118
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; 4:11-cv-02488-RBH)
Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 construing his motion for reconsideration as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on
that basis. 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.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3