United States v. Kenyon Gadsden ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENYON RAHEEN GADSDEN, a/k/a Kenny R. Jones, a/k/a Todd Fuller, a/k/a
Kenyon Gadsden, a/k/a Kenya,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:96-cr-00182-RBS-1; 2:16-cv-
00459-RBS)
Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 19, 2018
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laura Colombell Marshall, HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenyon Raheen Gadsden seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Gadsden has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
2