United States v. Rasheen Weston ( 2019 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6927
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RASHEEN WESTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:15-cr-00087-CMC-1;
3:19-cv-00746-CMC)
Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rasheen Weston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rasheen Weston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
On direct appeal from Weston’s underlying criminal judgment, this court rejected
his claims challenging the validity of three of his predicate convictions under the Armed
Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2012). United States v. Weston, 681 F. App’x
235, 236-38 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 15-4744). In his § 2255 motion, Weston rehashed the
same arguments that this court fully considered on direct appeal. Absent a “change in the
law that warrants . . . reconsideration,” United States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 396 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2004), a prisoner typically “cannot circumvent a proper ruling on direct appeal by
re-raising the same challenge in a § 2255 motion,” United States v. Dyess, 730 F.3d 354,
360 (4th Cir. 2013) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). Because Weston
2
identifies no such change in the law, we conclude that the district court’s decision not to
revisit these previously adjudicated claims is not debatable.
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
3