United States v. Kevin Slade ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6775
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    KEVIN MYELL SLADE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00003-FL-1)
    Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 24, 2021
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Myell Slade, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Myell Slade seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his motion to
    correct the presentence report and his sentence 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 Slade 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6775

Filed Date: 8/24/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2021