United States v. Kenneth Reid

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6250 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6250 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 28, 2025 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6250 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion for judicial notice of adjudicative facts, motion challenging the propriety of his 240-month prison sentence for his conviction on count 1, and motion challenging the propriety of his conviction on count 4 as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions to vacate and dismissing them 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 Reid has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reid’s motion to reconsider and reopen case, 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 * In its order, the district court also dismissed for lack of authority to consider them Reid’s motions brought under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 and Fed. R. Evid. 201, denied his motions for correction of records, and denied his motion seeking a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. Reid, however, confines his appeal to the district court’s § 2255 construction and dismissal rulings. 2