United States of America v. Kenneth Roshaun Reid

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6957
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: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce sentence.* Reid sought a sentence reduction
pursuant to Amendment 826 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He also challenged the validity
of his convictions. We dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.
The portion of Reid’s motion challenging the validity of his convictions was in
substance a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. As to this portion, the district court’s
denial ruling 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17
(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that his 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. The portion of the motion to reduce sentence challenging the
* The district court also denied Reid’s motion to appoint counsel, but the denial of
this motion is not at issue in this appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
validity of Reid’s convictions should have been construed as a successive § 2255 motion.
See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the
district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Reid’s successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny Reid’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal in part.
As to the district court’s denial of the remainder of the motion to reduce sentence,
we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Reid’s
motions to consolidate cases and affirm the district court’s order in part. United States v.
Reid, No. 0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 2025). 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 PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --