United States of America v. Perry Reese, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6419
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PERRY REESE, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00034-FL-1; 7:23-cv-00138-
FL)
Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023
Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Perry Reese, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Perry Reese, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion 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 Reese has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
* To the extent Reese seeks authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255
motion, we conclude that he fails to satisfy the criteria set forth in § 2255(h).

-- 2 of 2 --