United States of America v. Kenneth Roshaun Reid

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6850
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: November 19, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roshaun Reid seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his
motion for relief under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1
(2022), as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it 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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Reid’s motions to appoint counsel, for judicial notice of requested relief,
and to reverse decision on appeal and 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 of 2 --