United States v. Perry Reese, III ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6419      Doc: 7         Filed: 11/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6419
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    PERRY REESE, III,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00034-FL-1; 7:23-cv-00138-
    FL)
    Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 22, 2023
    Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Perry Reese, III, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6419         Doc: 7      Filed: 11/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Perry Reese, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    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, as here, 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)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reese 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 contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    To the extent Reese seeks authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255
    motion, we conclude that he fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in § 2255(h).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-6419

Filed Date: 11/22/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/23/2023