United States v. Reep

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7611
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY REEP, a/k/a Dirty Harry, a/k/a Harry,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 09-7691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY REEP, a/k/a Dirty Harry, a/k/a Harry,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-9; 2:08-cv-00050-RAJ)
Submitted: May 17, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
No. 09-7611 dismissed; No. 09-7691 affirmed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Rodney Reep, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Rodney Reep challenges
the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion (appeal No. 09-7611), and motion
for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006) and subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend the district court’s judgment as to his § 3582(c)(2)
motion (appeal No. 09-7691).
The § 2255 order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reep has not
made the requisite showing. Therefore, we deny leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and
dismiss appeal No. 09-7611.
3
In appeal No. 09-7691, we have reviewed the district
court’s orders denying Reep a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and denying his post-judgment motion. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Reep, No. 2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-9 (E.D.
Va. July 22, 2009; August 21, 2009).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
No. 09-7611 DISMISSED
No. 09-7691 AFFIRMED
4