United States of America v. Lorenzo Everrette Roscoe

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LORENZO EVERRETTE ROSCOE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00057-RBS-DEM-1)
Submitted: July 20, 2022 Decided: July 28, 2022
Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Everrette Roscoe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Everrette Roscoe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s memorandum order denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Roscoe also appeals the court’s memorandum order
denying his request for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and for a
recommendation that he be transferred to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC). The court’s
memorandum order denying the Rule 60(b) motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). See generally
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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.
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 Roscoe has
not made the requisite showing.
As for the remainder of Roscoe’s appeal, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal
from the order denying the Rule 60(b) motion and we affirm the district court’s order

-- 2 of 3 --

3
denying release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and declining to recommend that
Roscoe be transferred to an RRC. 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 --